PART TWO: Is Human Nature Natural (& why are we good)?

Q: What do we mean by “nature” (as in “human nature”)?

Q: Do you think there is anything we can say about an essential ethical “nature” in humans? (Are we “naturally” good?)

Q: What is a “state of nature”?

* The (hypothetical?) condition of human beings prior to civilization.

* This assumes a uniform system of human tendencies (that are subsequently the basis for theories about social systems that arise from or are formed in regards to these tendencies.

* Such a condition may be historically grounded, inherent and ahistorical, or a rhetorical abstraction.

Q: Why might one find it useful to speak of a “state of nature”?

Q: Do you believe (perhaps tacitly) anything about a universal human condition or tendencies?

Q: What does the story of Eden suggest about our natural state?

Q: Is there scientific evidence of a “state of nature”?

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679):

* Wrote Leviathon during 1642 Civil War, prior to the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 (and beginning of Constitutional Monarchy).

* Hobbes thought that human nature was suspicious, cowardly, proud, egoistic—but still rational.

* Humans have a disposition to do harm to one another, but they also seek self-preservation above all things—and that means not getting other people angry.

* Hobbes felt that humans in nature would revert to violence, so a “state of nature” was essentially a constant state of war.

* But since humans are rational, they know that self-preservation is more important than the natural and unrestricted liberty, so they naturally agree to a “social contract” that restricts their unlimited freedom in order to create stability and safety.

* Subsequently, Hobbes believes that a monarchical government—whether elected or imposed by force—is best, and citizens defer to a sovereign with unlimited power, promising to disobey only those laws that might threaten their own self-preservation (torture, starvation, execution, and so forth).

* However, it is in the best interests of humans to avoid rebellion against tyrannical behavior that does not threaten this fundamental imperative of self-preservation.

JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704):

* Locke was incredibly influential on the course of Western philosophical and political thought—perhaps the most important source for the ethos expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

* Locke was an Empiricist, believing that all knowledge comes from sense experience and certain intuitions.

* He believed that all humans are born as “tabula rasa” or as a “blank slate”: “There is nothing in the mind except what was first in the senses.” Sensation begets memory; reflection begets ideas. And ideas are developed with language.

** He thought that 99% of all differences between people is due to their having different experience in life.

But let’s get to why Locke is important to our discussion about “State of Nature”…..

Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689).

* Following his 1st treatise (vs. royal absolutism), this 2nd treatise elaborates on his own theory of government—a limited one that protects human freedom.

* Locke defines “state of nature” as “men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them.”

* Reason is fundamental to human nature and suggests to us a mutual dependence and commonality of experience, needs, and potential; human rights, then, exist only if socially recognized and upheld.

* Like Hobbes, Locke believes humans enter into a social contract because we want to avoid a state of war—but also because we seek fellowship. We are gregarious creatures.

Q: So, how do the theories of Hobbes and Locke differ on the issue of our natural inclinations and why we might obligate ourselves to certain systems of laws or ethical systems?

JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778):

Rousseau was another very influential philosophy of the Enlightenment who was also a Romantic—he had a different view of human “nature” in relationship to civil society.

* Rousseau was suspicious of overly-intellectual philosophy and its affront to the experiential reality of the world.

* In 1749, the Dijon Academy of Arts, Sciences, and Letters sponsored an essay competition on this theme: “Has the restoration of the sciences and the arts contributed to corrupt or to purify morals”?

* Rousseau answered in the negative: the arts & sciences have corrupted humans, and the act of “civilization” has degraded or opposed the natural virtues of men.

* The progress visible in industrialization, science, and philosophy has outpaced us—grown faster than our ability to control its influence—and so we are being dominated and degraded by such “advancement.”

* To consider the inevitable outcome of such a fate, consider Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

* Rousseau believed that all “learning” and “advancement” must originate from and be guided by “virtue”—which is a sort of intuitive sense of directedness within us.

* Rousseau won first prize!

* The Dijon Academy held another contest in 1753 on the theme “What is the origin of inequality among men, and is it authorized by natural law?” Rousseau wrote an essay, but he did not take 1st place this time.

* In this 2nd essay, Rousseau writes about a “state of nature,” but he admits that such an original situation perhaps did not ever exist and might be less a historical view than a hypothetical one: “Society may be as old as man.”

* Rousseau’s “state of nature” pictures men as stronger, more capable, and more passionate than in civilization. (Eden-esque?)

* Men are selfish but in a positive, natural way that allows for self-preservation.

* They feel compassion for fellow human beings.

* In this state of nature, men are self-sufficient and slavery or servitude is impossible—such subservience is only possible within systems.

* In civilization, the strong and independent natural man is enslaved.

* Rousseau describes various factors of such enslavement:

* Establishment of law

* Physical property

* Institution of magistration

* Transformation of legitimate strength to arbitrary control.

* Marriage: love—jealousy—pride—hostility.

Consider what you know about human development, either from your own life or based upon your experience of other people. Looking especially at children and adolescents, how does morality tend to develop? Do you think they would lean inevitably towards an ethically deliberate behavior, or are morals necessarily imposed by external forces?

Consider the events in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Did he accurately project what would happen to children left to their own devices?

Before moving on, perhaps it is valuable to ask again the question, “Where does morality come from?” Does the inherent matrix of our human being prompt us to morality?