Why Your Beliefs About Human Nature Matter
Religion has often been used as a tool to control (or at the very least, to help construct) an understanding of human nature that demands the creation of a structured society around it to keep humanity from running amock. We have seen in countless examples how religion becomes a vessel to champion the belief that human nature is inherently flawed, that humans are grotesque and hedonistic at their very core. While religion is no longer a dominant source of guidance for people in Western democratic societies, the dissolution of religious influence has not withered away with it our perpetuating of these notions that humanity ought to be controlled in such a way.
It is not to say that religion itself is oppressive, rather, it is the culmination of laws and social expectations that perpetuate the notion that humanity must be controlled above all else that becomes oppressive. It is not even to say that religion should or should not be a part of the Westsern world as it continues to develop, just to suggest that with the withering away of religion we have not successfully changed our views of human nature, we have merely transferred the belief that humans are inherently flawed onto many postmodern and “progressive” movements that operate precisely the same way because they have borrowed the framework previously used by religion.
One might successfully suggest that politics has replaced religion this way. The framework still stands, the core belief is that humanity is inherently flawed, the objective is to use this framework to seize control, and the outcome is a further distortion of power and resources because the premise upon which radical politics and radical religion is founded is flawed. That is, of course, to say, we can never be sure what the true nature of humanity is because we are actively engaging in the process of humanity’s self-discovery. Since that is true, we are also actively discovering the ways that governments and other authoritative bodies ought to interact with humanity.
The Political And The Personal Implications Of Our View Of Human Nature
One of the most classic debates in politics is the Hobbes/Locke debate regarding the nature of humanity and, in turn, the nature of the goverments that we should create to overlook humanity. Hobbes, of course, is famous for his pessimistic view of human nature and justification for large, invasive governments established to thwart the dangers of anarchy. Locke is famous for a more optimistic view of man’s capacity to self-govern and a belief that human nature tends towards peaceful relations when government is comprised of two consenting parties.
Some people today still seem to believe that when left unchecked, the nature of humanity is a downward spiral into violence and anarchic chaos. This may not be completely untrue, but it is a notion that provides justification for larger, more invasive forms of government, particularly at a time when religion has (perhaps rightfully) stepped aside as the primary moderator of morals and values. At that, we must ask (before it is too late) how to keep these governing bodies from becoming so powerful that they lead us to doubt our own capacity to self-govern and with that, doubt the potential that we are, at our core and above all else, good creatures.
How The Untold Nature Of Humanity Forces Us Into Belief Systems
We will never know the true nature of humanity. Only time and social evolution will reveal the innate qualities of human beings at large, and there is ample evidence that can be manipulated either way to construct the argument that humans are either inherently good or inherently evil. What we do know, however, is that historically speaking, the belief that humanity is inherently evil has come with the implication that the existence of authority or government (or religious authority) is a key component of thwarting evil tendencies. A negative or nihilistic view of human nature has often been at the core of oppressive doctrines used to seize and concentrate power to the hands of few and perpetuate said negative view of human nature.
This, then, is precisely why what we believe to be true about human nature matters more than we understood previously. The notion that human beings are not just inherently good, but also capable of engaging in civil discourse, provides a justification for the extension of inalienable rights to human beings under government of any kind. If we find reasonable examples to prove that our nature is to be good, to be benevolant, and that these qualities are reinforced with more individual freedoms, then we perpetuate whatever percentage of human nature already is those things. Once more, we will never know the true nature of humanity, but we do know how the belief that humanity is inherently flawed quickly becomes the core of invasive governments, oppressive religious movements, and the dissolution of civil discourse.
