HUMAN NATURE: ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOOD AT HEART

Human Nature: Are People Actually Good At Heart

Muneera Al Bastaki
201406979

Christopher Thornton
COL 240S

HUMAN NATURE: ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOOD AT HEART

The nature of human nature has long been debated by people for millennia, yet by
examining the philosophical, religious and sociological analyses that have long been in practice,
it is clear that the majority of these findings support the notion that human beings are born good,
but acquire evil traits through their surrounding environments they progress in life. There is
even such saying as baby innocence, which mean that at the beginning of our life we have no
sinful nature, or, by other words, no ability to differ the good and the bad. With time we learn
what pleases us and what displeases us. We acquire more and more restrictions to follow; and it
happens we brake them and get to know the difference of good and evil.

From our understanding of human nature it depends very much on how people think of it:
for some people it is the meaning and purpose of life, understanding of what we should do and
what to strive for, something to hope for, or who to be; for human societies is what we want to
build a society and what kind of social change must carry. The answers to these critical questions
depend on whether we recognise the existence of the true or internal nature of people. The Bible
says that humans were created by God with a transcendent purpose. The true nature of man is
the totality of social relations, as wrote Karl Marx in the middle of the 19th century. Sartre was
also an atheist, but unlike Marx believed that our nature was not determined by society, nor
anything else. He was convinced that every man was completely free to choose what he or she
wanted to be and what to do.
According to Hobbes, a man is each by itself, a maverick, a loner. It can be temporarily entered
into an alliance agreement, but seeks not friendship, but rather a benefit (Boucher, 1998). A sense
of responsibility, duty and patriotism are formed artificially. Together people harbour even
indifference and hostility. According to Hobbes, it does not stop the war of all against all in the
natural state. Think about it: when there is a war state to state, there are enemies, allies and
compatriots. Rousseau argues with Hobbes about the study of human nature. Like other
educators, he believed that nature was not a stepmother, but a caring mother, laid in a child talent
and not defects and hid away dangerous toys (for example, deep underground iron ore, which
became the basis of metal tools and weapons). If thistle grows from the beautiful flowers, and
vicious immoral adults have been talented children it is a blame of the teachers and educators
of educators, ultimately, vicious society.
Particular ethical teachings of Socrates bring all the virtues of man and his highest good to the
knowledge, is to the implementation of wisdom. Wisdom is the beginning and end of the moral,
that is, true by human activities. The wise man must first know the true value for the objectives
pursued by people. Socrates believed that knowing the relative price of each thing and every
action, people have a reasonable rate of their behaviour; knowing themselves, their true nature,
people know that they need good and useful, and, of course, want their own benefit.
How optimistic people may be, the world does not always seem to them the most joyful place to
live. Each of us, no matter who he is himself - a Christian theist, deist, an atheist, a mystic or
nihilist, bears the burden of suffering and evil faces. It is useless to deny the reality of evil,
attributing it simply ignorance or illusions (Hume & Biggie, 1978). The unique significance of

HUMAN NATURE: ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOOD AT HEART

the problem of evil and suffering is due to, firstly, the universality of evil and suffering (without
exception every person on earth, good and bad person encounter with evil and suffering).

There are three different systems of views on concepts of good and bad in human nature
Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity. Islam combines the most basic human virtues, revered and
respected by every people. It created an effective system of laws, of ethics, of what is permitted
and forbidden. The standards of the prosperous life of the individual and society are considered
morally positive good; and harmful to society actions classified as immoral evil.
In their desire to avoid formalism, Islam links the ethical values of love for Allah and people
(www.carroll.edu).
When one delves into the philosophy of Buddhism, it turns out that good and evil are relative,
subjective concepts. What one consider evil, for the other can bring good. "Good" and "evil" is
necessary, as light and shade in a painting, as the North and South in a magnetic field. They are
different, but are the full parties of Primary Reality and necessary for life in balance, universal
harmony. It is concluded that there is no sin, no blemish. There is no essential difference between
the righteous and depraved, saints and thieves all of this is temporary karma that are ground in
the mills of reincarnation, and, finally, dissolve in the boundless sea of Primary Reality.
Therefore man is not responsible for their actions: he is a small wheel in the universal
mechanism (DeSteno &Valdesolo, 2011). The fact that he appreciates his actions as good and
evil is an illusion.
Christian views on good and evil are definitely opposite then two previous religious systems. The
relativity of all Islam and Buddhism conceptions did not prevent the formation of a particular
program, the opposite of the Christian: Buddhism flatters human vanity talking about progress of
human spirituality, and Christianity claims that the spirituality of all mankind is degrading: more
and more people are losing common sense, understanding of God's ways, truth, substituting their
own inventions for the sake of complacency. In the end, before the coming of the Lord, there
would be lost not only God but also human likeness. People would bow Antichrist as god.
Buddhism teaches to trust your feelings, as the only "voice of truth", Christianity teaches not to
trust the feelings, as often they arise from passions secret or overt, and often from the temptation
of the devil. Buddhism believes in the fulfillment of individual "enlightenment" execution force
of "harmonization", while Christianity claims that "the moment", when the individual expects to
do something with self independently is the moment of extinction of the true, spiritual, full of
grace life (Hick, 1966).
One of the current theories of understanding of the categories "good" and "evil" is existentialism,
which stresses its attention on the uniqueness of human existence and proclaims its irrationality.
The important point for understanding the thoughts of the existentialists in relation to the
categories of "good" and "evil" is a judgment that the person is actually on "free" ways of being
human. There must be not changing external conditions; only the internal change the
installation of the consciousness in such a way, that its being will be in front of him as his "own
creation" (DeSteno &Valdesolo, 2011). Based on this judgment, we can say that existentialists do
not exist specifically defined notions of morality.

HUMAN NATURE: ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOOD AT HEART

Social Analysis
There are several explanations called effects that somehow explain the shaping of human
nature during its maturing and living. Hawthorne Effect is a condition in which the novelty of
interest to the experiment or the increased attention to the issue leads to distorted, often too
favorable outcome. This effect was discovered by a group of scientists headed by Elton Mayo
during the so-called Hawthorne experiments (1924-1932). Hawthorne Effect has a dual
interpretation: positive changes in people's behavior caused by volunteered care to them that
people themselves interpreted as sympathetic participation; in experimental psychology changes
in the observed phenomena occurred due to the fact of observation. People were aggressive
sometimes and acted rightly just for benefit (bonus) (Fernald, Coombs & Parnes, 2012).
The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil is a book by the
American social psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Central to the book is the correlation of the
experimental results with those events that took place in a real prison. They explored the power
of group conformity and obedience to authority, which may prevail and stifle individual
initiative. This information is sufficient to lay the foundation for understanding how ordinary,
good people, and maybe we are sometimes act badly towards others, sometimes so bad that it is
beyond any scope of morality or ethics.
De Waal rejects Darwinian fundamentalism, which assumes that every one of our
activities, whether apparently wicked or decent, are directed by narrow minded qualities. De
Waal's perspective of human instinct is hopeful yet not innocent. The terrible news is that both
our inalienable compassion and the religions we make have solid in-gathering predispositions. In
an always globalism society, mankind's most prominent good development to make pro social
conclusions general and unprejudiced will request more than conflicting beliefs or science
(Waal).

After considering previous religious and authors views on good and evil (the first of
which says that human is born innocent, and the second talks about some factors that could
impact them in a bad way) lets consider the role of society and state in the social processes
going in life of each man. Hobbes's understanding of good and evil comes from the constant
sensual "nature of man". Hobbes considered "natural law" as the basis of morality. Moral duty in
its content coincides with the civil obligations arising from the social contract. Rousseau is
mainly guided by evidence of the senses; for him deism is alive, the immediate conviction. On
this was founded his belief in the immortality of the soul. Rousseau felt a free will, as an original
and creative force. To this was added his moral principle, deduced from the conscience. What is
instinct to the body, it is conscience to the soul. Thus, Hobbes emphasizes, that life in civilization
defines good of human behavior, when Rousseau argues, that conscience is inherent for a
man (experimentaltheology.blogspot.ae).
The processes of humans self-destruction and violence have been discussed throughout
all historical periods. Ancient poets and philosophers paid attention to the prevailing ontology of
violence and self-destruction that was understood by them as an essential element of world order.
Representatives of patristic and scholastic philosophical positions, which were determined by

HUMAN NATURE: ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOOD AT HEART

ecclesiastical dogmas, developed the issue of violence within the metaphysical perspective of
theodicy. Modern European thinkers moved the analysis of the phenomenon of violence and selfdestruction from the realm of onto-theology into the sphere of political philosophy, laying the
foundations for a rights-based approach to understanding violence, which still occupies a
predominant place both in philosophical and everyday thinking. Representatives of the German
classical philosophy has enriched the new-European tradition of understanding violence and selfdestruction, as the ethical approaches, by continuing the development of the problems of
violence in the political aspect. The efforts of the leading representatives of cultural and political
elite of the second half of XIX early XX century to explain violence and self-destruction has
incorporated into the totalitarian ideology of Nazism, fascism and communism. The devastating
consequences of World War II, as well as representatives of the Frankfurt school, humanistic and
liberal philosophical traditions, contributed to the demystification of the modernist cult of
violence. Post-modern thinkers have perfected the rhetoric of re-conquest different forms of
repression (www.carroll.edu).

Thus, since ancient times, people have wondered about what "good" and what is "evil".
In their study of these concepts the society has created and used many theories. If one world
view says that life in civilization determines human behavior, then the other argues that man is
inherently have a conscience (given by his Creator). If in one belief system there is no distinction
of good and bad (no post-effects neither on the one nor from the other), then in another how a
man acts and lives determines his future, his eternity. Of course, man was not created being
naturally good or evil - there the answer is clear. When he grows to conscious age
since then he has to make choices on a daily basis.

References
Boucher, D. (1998). Political theories of international relations (Vol. 383). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

HUMAN NATURE: ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOOD AT HEART

Fernald, D. H., Coombs, L., DeAlleaume, L., West, D., & Parnes, B. (2012). An assessment of
the Hawthorne Effect in practice-based research. The Journal of the American Board of
Family Medicine, 25(1), 83-86.
Hume, D., & Biggie, L. (1978). A treatise of human nature (2d ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Waal, F. (n.d.). The bonobo and the atheist: In search of humanism among the primates.
Theories of human nature. Web. <http://www.carroll.edu/msmillie/philhumbeing/theorieshuman
nature.htm>
DeSteno, D., & Valdesolo, P. (2011). Out of character: The surprising truths about the liar,
cheat, sinner (and saint) lurking in all of us. New York: Crown.
Experimental Theology. Web.<http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.ae/2006/06/are-humansgood-or-bad-hobbes-vs.html>
Walker, P. L. (2001). A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence. Annual Review
of Anthropology, 573-596.
Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the God of Love.