Are human beings intrinsically good or bad?

Is human good or bad? The question about human moral nature is not just a mere theoretical curiosity; It has profound implications for how we conceive of justice, education, politics, and ultimately how we view ourselves and others.

Why does this question matter? If we assume that man is intrinsically good, then evils or errors result from external factors: poor education, negative influence of the environment or unfortunate circumstances.

On the other hand, if we assume that we are evil or selfish, then our good actions require a conscious effort to overcome basic nature and social institutions and rules would exist to keep the worst inclinations in check.

The problem of good and evil in ancient times

Since ancient times, questions about the characteristics of our moral nature have been an important topic. Socrates, considered the father of Western ethics, advocated the idea that virtue is knowledge. According to him, no one does evil on purpose; When people commit malicious acts, they do so out of ignorance of what is good.

There is an identity here between virtue and morality. So that, If one knows what is good, one will act accordingly. Therefore, education and introspection are essential to achieving a virtuous life. From this perspective, human beings are not intrinsically bad; he can only be uninformed or confused about what makes up a good deed.

First differences about human nature

This thought will be deepened by Plato through his theory of forms. There are immutable and eternal realities, ideas, of which the entire sensible world is an imperfect copy.

Humans have a participation in the “idea of ​​good”, but this is obscured by distractions and deceptions of the material world. Through education and philosophy, the soul can remember and orient itself toward that “idea of ​​good.”

Aristotle, on the other hand, considered that humans are born with the ability to develop virtues and virtuous habits throughout their lives. Virtue is a quality that is acquired through practice and learning, and is achieved through a process of education and personal development.

Thus, human beings do not have a participation with the “idea of ​​good”, but Through the cultivation of virtues we tend towards good.

Although Aristotle does not hold the belief that human nature possesses an intrinsic and immutable goodness, he demonstrates an optimistic approach regarding man’s inherent capacities to develop and express virtue in his behavior and character.

Discussion in modernity

After going through the Middle Ages, marked by religious thought, although supported by the ancients, Modernity brought a new way to discuss the problem of good and evil.

Man’s vision began to move away from transcendental notions and focus more on the palpable human experience and condition. Here the opinions are derived into two large aspects that will mark the course of ethics and political philosophy.

Hobbes’ pessimistic egoism

One of the most famous and controversial thinkers of modernity, Hobbes, proposed a rather bleak vision of human nature in his work Leviathan. According to him, in a state of nature (without laws or social structures), Human beings would act driven by their basic instincts and, in particular, by the desire for self-preservation.

This condition would inevitably lead to what he calls a “state of war of all against all.” His famous phrase homo homini lupus (man is a wolf to man) reflects this idea. To avoid chaos, humans agree to enter into a social contract, ceding some of their rights to a sovereign or authority that guarantees peace and security.

Rousseau’s optimism

By contrast, Rousseau offered a more optimistic view of humanity. He argued that man in his state of nature is good, a kind of “noble savage” who lives in harmony with his environment.

It is society and its structures that corrupt this innate goodness, leading the individual to act against his true nature. For Rousseau, the path to a just and good society lies in recognizing inherent goodness and restructuring society so that it more closely resembles that idealized natural state.

Current controversy

The contemporary world, with its rapid technological advances, sociocultural changes, and global challenges, offers new prisms through which to examine human moral nature. One might wonder if the terms good and bad are appropriate for thinking about our behavior.

We could even question the very existence of human nature. Many assume that society shapes our attitudes and that what is good and bad varies from one culture to another. However, there are also evolutionary approaches that emphasize our propensity to act in a certain way.

Morality and power

Nietzsche, with his provocative and enigmatic style, challenged many traditional conceptions of morality. Instead of viewing morality in terms of absolute good and evil, he argued that These concepts are social constructions that serve certain power interests.

In his criticism of traditional morality, especially Judeo-Christian morality, he saw a “slave morality,” which glorifies humility and submission, as opposed to a “master morality,” which celebrates the strength and affirmation of power. life. For this philosopher, Human nature is a vital force, a “will to power.” And morality is subordinate to that force.

The situational nature of morality

In 1971, psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a famous experiment in which college students were randomly assigned to the roles of guards or prisoners in a prison simulation. The investigation was interrupted earlier than planned, because the behavior of the guards became very abusive.

Zimbardo concluded that Power structures and situations can have a profound impact on the moral behavior of individuals, suggesting that goodness or evil would be situational.

Evolution and cooperation

From the field of evolutionary biology, it has been proposed that certain moral behaviors, such as cooperation or altruism, would have evolutionary advantages. As Michael Tomasello argues in Why do we cooperate?in primitive societies, those individuals who cooperated with others and formed strong community ties had greater chances of survival and reproduction.

This perspective suggests that, at least in part, our propensity to act morally perhaps results from evolutionary forces. However, this view also recognizes that humans have the ability to act against their instincts, which complicates the question of whether we are naturally good or bad.

A debate in progress

Knowing whether humans are essentially good or bad is one of the most persistent and debated questions in the history of thought. From ancient philosophical reflections to the most recent research, the search for a single answer remains elusive.

Our nature is complex and cannot be reduced to simplistic labels of good or bad. Each individual is an amalgamation of experiences, education, genetics and personal decisions. Furthermore, what a culture or society considers moral or immoral varies considerably from one to another.

While certain studies and theories suggest that there are biological and evolutionary factors that influence our morality, it is also clear that Human beings have an incredible capacity for change and adaptation. Through education, introspection, and experience, people evolve and adapt their moral understandings and practices.

You might be interested…