Wed 27 Jan 2010
Is Humanity Naturally Good, or Naturally Evil?
Posted by Daryl under General Observations, Rantings
No Comments
A break from woodworking
This is a debate that is almost as old as humans. I imagine it’s not quite as old as us, just because I would think that the first humans likely either already knew the answer, or really didn’t care. However, I have seen it come up a few times now and thought I would put my two cents into the debate. Before I start, however, I do want to say that I cannot possibly cover the entire topic in a single blog post. So I won’t. I am just basically going to skim the surface. (Which is probably for the best as I am not really qualified to cover it in its entirety.)
First, I guess some definitions are in order. What is meant by “naturally good” verses “naturally evil”? I can’t speak for everyone who debates this topic, but for me, I always interpret it as a debate about the current, natural tendencies of the human being if all things were equal. For example, if a person had enough food to eat, and could spare a little bit for someone who was starving, would their natural tendency be to give that other person food, or would their natural reaction be to hoard what they had in order save it for themselves? What I am *not* talking about is whether the human race, as a specie, is good or evil. If you think that the existence of humanity is something that is universally wrong and contrary to “the nature of things”, then you have more issues to deal with then what human tendencies are. What I am talking about is what we are inclined towards, not the base value of our being.
“Ah,” you say. “But who is it who defines what is good and what is evil?” Excellent question; the answer is that it’s irrelevant at the moment. There are many, many things that are universally considered to be good or evil. Every culture in the world views tripping an old lady on the road as something that is wrong. That said, I am not writing this from the perspective of every culture in the world, I am writing it from the perspective of my culture, and I am Canadian. (While you may disagree with me that Canada, or even North America, counts as a culture, let me assure you that you are wrong.) So for the purpose of this discussion, and to avoid the debate of what the basis of right and wrong is, let’s just use what’s accepted as right and wrong by Canadian standards (which are very similar to, at least, the rest of North America).
“Fair enough,” you say (because, of course, you accept my argument) “But why is this even an issue?” Glad you asked. The answer is that it’s not an issue, it’s an airy fairy, academic debate that has little to no ramifications to your life, or the lives of those around you. For the most part. What really matters is not actually the nature of humanity, but the nature of you and I as individuals. Yes, I guess the nature of humanity plays a role here, but I really don’t care about whether someone else is naturally evil or not, what I care about is whether I am and, if so, what I can do about it.
This is where the debate reveals its reason for existence. You see, if I find out that I am naturally good, then I really don’t have to worry too much about my actions because they should, if I follow what’s in my nature to do, tip the scales for the better when all is said and done. If I am naturally good, then I can look to myself to realize my full potential as a human and become self-actualized. If I am naturally good, then I don’t need any one else’s input into how I run my life. I am my own master; I am a rock; I have no need for anything other than myself. I am, however, human. So this belief is only really sustainable if the same applies to all humans.
If, however, I find out that I am naturally evil, then everything changes. Remember what I just said in the previous paragraph? If I’m naturally evil, then the exact opposite of all of that is going to be the case for me. And if this is the same for all humans, then humanity needs to humble itself and ask for help from something greater then itself.
“Fine,” you say. “So what are the arguments of *both* sides of this debate?” Well, now that you asked that, I must be perfectly honest with you. I am biased towards my own opinion. I say this because I don’t know how well I will do at presenting the side that I think isn’t correct. However, not knowing what I’m talking about has never stopped me before, and it won’t stop me now. So with that I will attempt to detail out the basic arguments for both sides of this proverbial coin.
As near as I can tell, the majority of the arguments about this topic tend to go something like this:
“It’s obvious to me that humanity is naturally good/evil. Just look at all the good/evil that is happening throughout the world? See, that proves it!”
As you might have guessed by the way I worded that statement, I think that this is a very silly argument…for either side. What we do is often very different from what we are inclined to do, and what we are talking about is not what we have learned to do, but what we do naturally; our instincts. What do we instinctively want to do in any given situation? Unfortunately, the above statement comprises the majority of the arguments that you will hear when listening to people debate this topic.
The reason I think that humanities achievements (good or bad) are not a good indicator of what its true nature is, is that one can easily say that we are naturally good/evil, but there’s something acting against/for us that’s causing us to be, at times, evil/good.
As a side note, I guess one might say that there’s a third option; that humanity is neither naturally good nor evil. However, this would mean that we ourselves are then the only measure of what is good or evil. If that were true, then we would naturally be good by default because our own actions themselves would be the only moral compass we could follow. Very silly indeed as it means that, if we decided that tripping older people in the streets was right, then that by itself would make it right. I shake my head.
The other argument, well it’s more of a statement, I’ve heard is this:
“Humanity is naturally good/evil, and our evil/good actions are learned behaviours.”
And this, for me, is what brings us to the crux of the matter. A learned behaviour is something you’re taught, not something that comes naturally to you. If one is a learned behaviour and the other not, then that would solve the argument. But how can you know which is which?
And now I come back to my statement before when I said that, whether or not this was “human nature” was irrelevant, because what matters is what is natural to you or I. And this is what will give us the hint as to what all of human nature is like.
As children, did we need to learn to be nice, or did we need to learn to be nasty?








