The question of whether or not man is good or evil has been around for millennia, being pondered by some of the greatest minds; however, it's rare to find that these people would agree on the answer to this question. In this article, we will examine the perspectives of three influential thinkers, Aristotle, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes, on this question, and finally, we will analyze the results from recent studies.
Firstly, we will address the barebones of these people’s thoughts. Aristotle believed that being good is a learned thing and that we are born amoral, meaning that people are neutral at birth; however, wickedness is voluntary, and the choices we make after birth are what make us moral or amoral.
Later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau disagreed with the idea that humans are born amoral, that humans are rather born morally good, however, Rousseau does agree that corruption can later on change that, a relatively brighter look on humanity, which seems to be shared by BBC’s as evident from their conclusions on their variation on the 2010 study about infant cognition.
On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes, a writer during the civil war, also disagreed with Aristotle in the same sense as Rousseau, except that he believed that people were born to react to natural law, which was somewhat agreed upon by Aristotle.
Taking a deeper dive into Aristotle’s thoughts, Aristotle believed that people try their best to avoid displeasure and maximize pleasure, which is to achieve a state of Eudaimonia, similar to enlightenment. This doesn’t just mean that one is successful, it also means that they are satisfied with their life or that they’re proud of their work. This seems to be the most "pragmatic" way of looking at this, as it ignores any points of view. It is arguable that Aristotle's perspective on human nature is the most pragmatic and unbiased, as it takes into account the potential for human beings to make choices that can shape their moral character.
Rousseau was an enlightenment thinker. This was a new way of thinking during the era of enlightenment, which was a time period when human equality was considered seriously for the first time in hundreds of years. This idea that many philosophers held in this period of time also held faith in the morality of man. Though, perhaps this faith was unfounded, given the atrocities committed during the french revolution. Such is the case with the reign of terror, where Robespiere executed 17,000 people, which he justified with “Virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue.” Though Rousseau believed that corruption could change the morals of someone, there is no clear definition of corruption: for example, would a radical such as Robespiere count as corrupt? Rather than the blank slate that Aristotle believes humans to be, Rousseau’s ideas suggest that man is born moral, though they are not impregnible to corruption.
Thomas Hobbes took a more cynical view of human morality, influenced by his experiences during the English Civil War. He disagreed with Aristotle’s theory of amorality similarly to Rousseau; however, he didn’t agree with Rousseau either; He believed that humans follow a "natural law" of sorts and that natural law compels people to be aggressive, envious, and engage in immoral behaviors that cause wars. Using the "lens" again, we may deduce that Thomas Hobbes may have been very cynical when he contemplated human morality, as a war of any kind causes suffering, especially a civil war where countrymen kills fellow countrymen. It’s also important to note that the civil war was primarily caused by power struggles, which reinforces the idea of the natural law that Thomas Hobbes theorized about. Due to his environment, Hobbes believed that people act more based on uncivilized impulses such as aggression, envy and greed because of a natural law, taking on a much more pessimistic view on human morality.
Finally, some modern-day studies seem to agree with Rousseau’s ideal that people are born morally good, one example being a study done on babies. The experiment has a baby watch a scene play out, with three distinct characters, one in need, attempting to perform a task. Another character obstructs the struggling character, before the last character helps the struggling character overcome the obstruction. The baby is then asked to choose one of the characters. Results show that the baby often picks the altruistic character, showing the altruistic nature of babies, though some interpret these results as the baby selecting the character that would most likely prolong their survival by instinct. Currently most other studies on human nature conduct studies on adults, who would have easily been affected by their upbringings, or are inconclusive.
In conclusion, the question of whether human nature is inherently good or evil has been debated across multiple eras, with various perspectives offered by philosophers and thinkers.In modern times, these perspectives have been further developed and debated, with various biases and influences shaping the views of different thinkers. Ultimately, the question of human nature remains a complex one, and there is no single definitive answer. By exploring the different perspectives on this topic, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and our environment.
Works Cited:
Aglietti, T. (n.d.). Are we born good or evil? BBC Earth.
https://www.bbcearth.com/news/are-we-born-good-or-evil-naughty-or-nice
Moleboi. (2011, December 31). Aristotle on human nature.
https://moleboi.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/aristotle-on-human-nature/