On Human Nature I've thought often about the nature of human beings. Are we, at our core, evil or good? If given complete free reign, would we help or hurt our fellow human beings? When people are in the most dire of straits, do they decide to be preocupied with their own survival, or do they cooperate with others in order to ensure survival for the greatest number of people? Is it human nature to always want to acquire more, or simply to succeed and see to it that his or her community is unharmed, and maybe even benefits from that success? I don't have all the answers to these questions, and I'm trying to determine my philosophy so that it is free of contradiction and hypocrisy. As of yet, I don't think I've succeeded. Part of why my philosophy as to the nature of human beings is so incomplete is my confusion. Atrocities are as much a part of human history as charity and the free blossoming of culture. Empires, governments, companies, and families have fallen to the demons of greed, lust, and wrath. These same institutions have flourished because of generosity, kindness, and integrity. Indeed, even my own life is marked by the paradoxical simultaneous existence of the kindness of strangers and the betrayal of friends. I hear often of man's inhumanity to man, but I also hear of deeds which demonstrate the respect and awe of human dignity that people have for each other. I am sometimes inclined to believe that man is evil. I feel that if I were to give free reign to my true personality, I would find that at my core, there is nothing of redeeming value; only an animal with hungers and desires. The most major philosophies and belief systems in the world seem to agree with me; they are likewise founded on a certain pessimism towards the nature of human beings. Religion dictates that we need redemption from ourselves. Capitalism says that humans are greedy and that the market will work according to that desire to gain more. Communism counters that because of that inherent greed, the market needs to be regulated to ensure that no one falls through the cracks. Executives grow fat and rich by unscrupulous means while ignoring the starving, sick child, and then claim some form of divine right as justification for their avarice. It is tempting, and even logically justifiable, to assume that man is basically evil -- furthermore, it seems like the responsible thing to do. Assuming greed always ensures that workers will slave for a profit; assuming envy means that people will always strive to outdo others. Any philosophy that assumes that human nature is anything other than self-aggrandizing would almost seem not only naïve, but like a hindrance to humanity's progress. However, sometimes I cannot help but believe that man is, at his core, good. My survival and my sanity depend largely upon this theory, naïve as it may seem. Perpetual suspicion takes a toll on the human psyche, and shuts people off from the kind acts of others which make life so worthwhile. This is my confusion, and the major belief systems of the world likewise give indications of this confusion in the structure of their own philosophies. Religion takes it for granted, most of the time, that people have basic human dignity, that they have a right to life -- thus explaining why killing is outlawed in all religions. Capitalism assumes that employers will create jobs and pay their employees a living wage instead of doing the asshole thing and cutting wages to ensure a larger profit margin. Communism is built on the theory that people are by nature industrious and will be motivated simply by love of the work rather than profit. There is ample reason to believe that human beings are fundamentally good: many of the innovations put forth by the human race were developed with the intention of creating a better world -- not just for one, but for all. The polio vaccine was developed out of the desire to stop the scourge of a devastating disease; pasteurization was developed to ensure the purity and safety of the foods the public consumed; the printing press was invented to facilitate the literacy and education of the masses. This seems to suggest that people are, by nature, not greedy and profit-driven, but noble, sympathetic, and eager to ensure the constant improvement of the human condition. And besides, assuming the worst of people is its own form of naïvete, however twisted. People who assume the worst of their fellow man are equally as blind as their more optimistic brothers, though in a different way. They may get taken advantage of less, because they wall themselves up, but they do not see that their separatist attitudes hurt them as well and to some degree, even perpetuate the evil that they see in humanity. The only thing I can conclude from what I have observed is that it is not safe to assume that human beings are purely one or the other. This is not to say that all human beings fall into the middle ground, but rather that each individual has the capacity for both good and evil, simultaneously. These two are not opposites, but they have a symbiotic relationship, are two sides of the same coin. The greatest evil seems to come from the best of intentions, however deluded, but also, the most profound examples of good emerge from the evil deeds that haunt us daily, providing a contrast, or arguably, a complement which preserves the balance of this world. But, what do I know. back to thoughts home