Core - The Natural Character of Man

What Is The Natural Character of Man?
In ancient Greece, above the doorway to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, there was written the words ‘gnothi seauton’ which means ‘know thyself.’  It is important in life to think about who you are and to discover yourself.  For many of us this is an individual journey of discovery, and it last for our whole lives. But there are many philosophers who would argue that there is a common nature to all of mankind and that we are all essentially alike in a variety of ways.

Are We Naturally Good or Bad?
The first philosopher we shall explore is Thomas Hobbes, according to whom it is in the nature of all human beings to be selfish. Hobbes is what we would call a Psychological Egoist. We are naturally individualistic and concerned only for our own needs; we are therefore uncaring towards the needs of others and are happy to use and abuse them to get what we want. Naturally we see others as a threat to ourselves, for we realise that they too are only out for themselves and their own gain. Our greed for material possessions and fear of others (who are similarly violent and greedy) leads us in a constant conflict with others. If the constraints of law and society were to be removed so that people could do whatever they felt like – whatever came naturally to them – there would be nothing but violence and anarchy, and in this State of Nature life would be “nasty, poor, brutish, and short.” Hence it is necessary to have societies with strict laws to control us, and this is for the good of us all because a life of perpetual conflict serves nobody’s interests. Governments have power and authority over us because we have agreed to live under their laws for our own selfish good.

Whilst Hobbes conceives of mankind as essentially selfish and vicious, others take the opposite opinion. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau human beings are not purely selfish, we have both self-love and compassion for others in equal measure. Like all animals we are concerned for our own welfare, but this does not have to mean treating others badly or that we automatically have no concern for them – it is natural to care for others, and it is something we have in common with many of the animals. Whilst Hobbes believed that society curbs the bad parts of our nature and makes us better people, it was Rousseau’s opinion that society has corrupted us and made us greedy. Rousseau envisages the state of nature as a simple place with no property, where individual men and women come and go drinking pure waters from rivers, eating fruits freely from trees, and so on. The needs of the noble savage are simple, and he has no property, and therefore there is nothing to compete over, nothing to fight for, and nothing to be greedy about. This means that a noble savage can easily be kind and compassionate towards others. However, when we come together in to a society things start to change. Differences in talent and intellect make some people more popular and important than others, and so hierarchies emerge creating competition, jealousy, and pride. Property comes in to being with certain clever people grabbing land and resources for themselves; they then fool others in to believing they have a right to it and that it should not be taken from them. And so it is that we get the emergence of rich and poor, and this causes greed and conflict. Finally society proper comes in to being with laws, most of which are designed to protect the interests and property of the rich. The effect is that mankind has become greedy and violent (like Hobbes says), and that we have lost our care and compassion for others. What is needed, then, is not to go back to being savages, but rather, restructuring society so that it is fairer, less divided, and so that the rich do not profit greatly from their undeserved theft of the land.

Are We Individuals of Members of Society?

According to both Hobbes and Rousseau people are individuals first, and members of society second. This view can be called Atomism according to which each person is a complete entity on his own, and society is nothing more than a collection of individuals; one need only think of Margaret Thatcher’s most famous quote “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”  Meanwhile, the contrary theory to this is called Communitarianism according to which each of us is a member of society, just one part of a whole, a community we have duties to, and without our society we are nothing.

For Hobbes man is naturally self concerned, and would want nothing more than to be totally independent. Hobbes even goes so far as to say that friendship is not a natural thing to man, what we all really want is to dominate others, not to be friends (and thus equals) with them. Hobbes viewed laws and society as unnatural constraints on an individual’s natural freedom and autonomy, and indeed it was the major thrust of his book Leviathan to justify the existence of a government and laws. He argued that without society and laws there would be anarchy and chaos, which nobody wants, so we all agree to sign a social contract stating that we will obey certain rules and take the punishments for breaking these rules. This is how society gains its authority over individuals, for in nature it has none.  Rousseau points to the fact that societies and customs change from place to place, so he argued that they must not be necessary parts of human nature, since whatever is natural and essential to human nature must be universal. Therefore he imagines his noble savage as an individual wondering alone in the wilderness, satisfying his meagre needs and being happy by himself. However, one thing never occurred to Rousseau: yes, the format and customs of society changes from place to place, but no matter where you go you will find that people are organised in to social groups with rules and customs. Is being social not essential to man?

According to philosophers such as Aristotle man is naturally a social and political animal, and to be a man outside of society is like being a fish out of water. Aristotle would say that it is only possible for us to service our basic needs – those of safety, survival, and reproduction – in communities, therefore living in a community is natural. Moreover, the fact that we can speak is evidence that we must be naturally social creatures; for Aristotle it is language and thought which separate mankind from the animals (these are actually viewed as the same thing, logos: thought is merely internal language, and language is external thought). Without a community we do not learn to speak, and therefore we do not learn to think; as far as Aristotle is concerned a person who is not part of a community is not a human at all, but merely an animal. Aristotle also argued that it is only possible to make the most of yourself – to fully develop your personality and talents – through interacting with other people in a large community.

Aristotle’s thoughts were picked up on by the likes of FH Bradley who argued that everything a person is, everything they think, and every drive they have, must be learned from the people around them. For Bradley and others such as JG Herder you are a product of your society and are nothing without it.  When you have finished this philosophy course you may consider yourself to be a cleverer, wiser, and more analytical individual, but would any of that really be possible without having read the thoughts of other people, and having discussed these ideas with your peers? Surely not!  Evidence for Aristotle’s ancient views comes in the modern form of Evolutionary Theory according to which the talents, intelligence, and language which makes us who we are could only possibly have come from communal living. It is a fact that monkeys and apes which live in larger communities have more interactions, larger brains, and more intelligence. Surely man has always been a social animal even since before he was man? 

Further arguments for the social nature of mankind come from GWF Hegel, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Jung. Hegel argued that it was impossible to have a true sense of yourself and of your own worth without first being recognised and appreciated by other people. Only through being respected and valued by another person, can you truly believe that you are a valuable and respectable person. Importantly this other person must be someone you value and respect, otherwise you won’t value their opinion and their praise, thus Hegel is a believer in seeing others as equals.  Maslow argued that the heights of human achievement are only possible through interacting with other people. He argued that we have a hierarchy of needs, with some needs being more basic than others and some being more advanced than others. First and foremost we need food and shelter, and also protection, and it is impossible to have friendships when we don’t have these, friendship beings something we all desire and need. However, Maslow would argue that it is impossible to make the most of ourselves without first having peer acceptance; how, for example, can a student do well in a class if he feels that the rest of the class do not like him? He will surely be demotivated, afraid to speak up and make his points, afraid to ask questions in case he looks stupid to his peers, and so on. Therefore, it is only through being with others that we can make the most of ourselves and be happy.  Lastly, Jung was a psychologist who argued that human beings have a shared understanding of the world thanks to ideas that are passed on through stories and myths.  Our psychology is fundamentally oriented towards our relations with others.

With all these arguments it almost seems impossible to argue that human beings are truly individuals. It seems we must side with John Donne and say “no man is an island.” But is this really so?  Whilst it can be said that we need the influence of other people to help us grow up, and that we certainly start out life being dependent on others, it does not necessarily mean we are still dependant and social beings as adults. Jean-Paul Sartre argued that without other people we would never develop self-consciousness (the ability to reflect on ourselves and see ourselves in a different light) but that this gives us freedom of choice: we can think for ourselves and change ourselves. Therefore you become an individual, you are not simply a member of society and part of the herd, you are capable of making your own choices, and anyone who simply does what everyone else does is denying their freewill, and is therefore in bad faith (see below). We should not complain that we have to do what society tells us, because to Sartre all things are optional, and are our own choices.

Another thorough individualist was Friedrich Nietzsche, according to whom the fundamental principle of our psychology is self-assertion, which he called Will To Power.  Fundamentally we all want to have an effect on the world, to dominate others, to change things, to express our abilities and power. Our core interests are selfish – we want to satisfy ourselves and our needs, we want to vent our instincts and feel alive and powerful. Whilst it is normal for us to live together, it is the mark of the lower / inferior man to be a member of the crowd, a part of the herd. It is the inferior man who accepts the principles and morals of his society, and who believes in equality and equal rights (as with Christianity and Kant) or who looks out for the needs of the many (as with Utilitarianism). Meanwhile, the stronger and superior men are those who are independent, creative, intelligent, and willing to use others as a means to an end in the achievement of their personal goals. The weaker man needs to think of himself as one amongst a great crowd because it is the only way he can be protected from the strong or intelligent few (strength in numbers, think of the way that trade unions stand up against business chiefs for the rights of their workers). Meanwhile, to a superior man the effects of his actions on society are not a concern, he should create and live by his own moral views, only being concerned with his own power, i.e. his own sense of power, pride, ambition, and achievement.

Are We All Equal?

Thomas Hobbes took the view that all people were equal. Though we have different talents we roughly have a balance so that one man would be just as talented as any other; one man may be strong but another will be intelligent. Moreover, people are capable of uniting together so even a very strong man can be overthrown by the joint efforts of others, thus again creating equality. The main way that we are all equal is in terms of our mortality: we are all equally frail and susceptible to death; it only takes one well aimed gunshot from afar to kill the cleverest and strongest of men. Christianity also teaches that human beings are equal, because we have all been created by God, and we are all made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). Each one of us has a soul, each one of us deserves respect, and no one can expect to get away with immorality before the judgement of God, no matter whether they are rich, poor, old, or young. Immanuel Kant would also champion equality, as he would say that all human beings are rational beings, and therefore we ought always to treat each other fairly and with respect. You should never think of yourself as being more important than other people, and therefore, you should never treat others in a manner that you would not wish to be treated.

Meanwhile, there are many philosophers who have furiously denied the existence of equality. Jean-Jacques Rousseau talked about natural inequality; he believed that it was fairly obvious that different people were not equal in terms of the talents and abilities they have. Someone who is highly intelligent is simply not on the same level as someone who is not very clever. Some people are clearly physically stronger or more agile than others. Some people are socially adept and able to entertain others, able to connect with them, whilst others are socially awkward or even insular. These differences were a fact of life to be accepted, and in the state of nature they would have very little impact, but in society they can make a lot of difference. However, what Rousseau was not prepared to accept was social inequality – the fact that some people are born rich and with lots of opportunities, whilst others are born poor and therefore without opportunities to make the best of themselves. Karl Marx picked up where Rousseau left off and demanded that all humans should be regarded as equals, and that Communism should be brought in, according to which no one is above anyone else in terms of wealth or esteem, we should all be equal in working together for the good of all humanity rather than seeking our own personal wealth. Resources should not be unevenly distributed, but instead should go to people according to their needs, not according to their talents.

Aristotle, being an ancient Greek, was also in favour of inequality, indeed he even wrote a treatise to justify slavery, something that was hugely prevalent in his times. Aristotle argued that slavery was necessary in order to provide for life’s necessities for survival. Interestingly, he said that if machines were able to produce things by themselves then there would be no need for slavery. He argued that there are natural differences in human beings which make some more suited to being masters, and others more suited to being servants who follow orders and carry out tasks. Make no bones about it – Aristotle supported slavery – but we can put his ideas in to a modern context as being something along the lines of the need for hierarchical relationships such as those of architect and builder, manager and assistant, doctor and nurse, and so on. Human activities require both thinkers and doers; on the one hand they need leaders, planners, and visionaries, and on the other hand they require people to carry out the plans and do the ‘donkey work’ as we might call it. In his own times only very few people were wealthy, and only very few people were educated; to Aristotle these people were the leaders, and the others needed direction. He would have regarded them as inferior human beings, as for Aristotle it was the ability to think, reason, and enquire than elevated man above animals and made them like the gods. Interestingly, Aristotle argued that slavery was only natural when the master and slave were happy with their situation, when their goals were the same. He saw it as a partnership, unequal of course, but a partnership none the less, similar to the way that a husband and wife are (or were) unequal partners.

Lastly, we come on to Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche loathed the idea of equality with a passion. He agreed with Aristotle that some people were simply superior to others. In his view people who were intelligent and strong were a better class of human being than others, and the majority of the human race are simply mediocre cattle, a ‘herd.’ He viewed the concept of equality as a dangerous and spiteful ideology created by the mediocre majority out of fear, jealousy, and resentment. They are jealous of the rich and powerful minority, and fed up of being at the bottom of the hierarchy, so in declaring that all people should be equal their intention is to pull the rich down and pull themselves up. Moreover, they are scared of the powerful and rich few, and tired of being used by them like slaves to serve the needs of the rich, so they declare that they are equal and deserving of fair treatment, good wages, and respect. All of this benefits the weak and mediocre majority, but Nietzsche sees it as a negative thing because it prevents the strong from being who they are, and it stifles human progress and creativity. It is the strong and intelligent few who make the most of life, who make it interesting, it is they who have achieved their goals, but the mediocre herd destroys all of this and makes life more tame, and ultimately makes it pointless.  Interestingly there are similarities with Marx here, but whereas Marx sees the rise of the poor majority as a good thing, Nietzsche sees it as bad for human culture and progress.

Is There Any Such Thing As Human Nature At All?

All of these arguments depend on the idea that there is a common nature to human beings, that there are characteristic ways in which we all act. Or at least, ways in which most of us act. (Does this mean that if you are one of the odd few who is different that you are not human?).  However, it could be argued that there is no common such thing as human nature.

It can be argued that every individual is different: we all have different personalities and interests. Perhaps rather than saying that everyone is greedy and selfish (as Hobbes says) it would be more accurate to say that some people are greedy, and that others are not. There are people in the world who are violent, there are people in the world who have violent feelings but control themselves, and there are people in the world to whom it never even occurs to be violent. Think of all the differences between individuals, is it really possible to say that we are all the same in some way? 

On a similar note it can be argued that people from different cultures are different; whilst in the Christian world there is a belief in monogamy, in the Islamic world there is a belief in polygamy; whilst in ancient Rome it was normal to watch slaves fight to the death in arenas, in modern times this would sicken almost everyone. Perhaps who we are varies over space and over time, and we should not make universal claims about what human beings are like (of course, we should remember that it may also be unwise to make blanket statements about what a particular race is like!!)  This is the position adopted by Johann Gottfried Herder who took the view that every person was a product of their society, and therefore that there can be no universal human nature.  In ethical terms this relates to Cultural Relativism, the idea that each culture should live by its own moral rules and that values cannot be trans-cultural so that people from one culture should not judge those of another.

On the other hand, it could be argued that we can find a midway ground; many thinkers in the ancient world believed in the idea that there was not a single human nature, but rather that there were four basic natures and that every person, no matter what their ethnicity, could be described as conforming to one of these Four Tempraments.  The theory was closely related to the theory of the Four Humours developed by Hippocrates, according to which both illnesses and moods were caused by imbalances in the four vital liquids of blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile.  Those with a Sanguine temperament tend to be very social and gregarious, they can be creative and tend to have good inter-personal skills and compassion.  They tend to be enthusiastic but to fail in completing tasks and are often late.  Those with a Choleric temperament are doers rather than thinkers, they have passion and ambition and try to encourage others with their energy. They are good at dominating people and tend to make good political and military leaders.  Those with a Melancholic disposition tend to be reflective and thoughtful, often being self absorbed.  They may worry about disappointing people and being on time, and also can become extremely concerned with the tragedy and evil of the world.  They are often creative and artistic, needing a way to express their melancholy emotions and thoughts.  They tend to be self-reliant and not to want to depend on others, and they are often perfectionists.  Lastly, those with a Phlegmatic disposition tend to be kind and contented, and to be accepting of others and their differences.  They might often be shy or unassertive and can be easily dominated by others, particularly Cholerics.  They are rational and consistent and good at observation and organisation, and they do not like change.  According to the theory all people will conform to these stereotypes or are combinations of them; the theory states that although not everyone is the same, no matter where you go, and no matter what time period you are in, the same old characters will pop up again and again.  Although the theory has been largely discredited by psychologists, the theory has been used to great success in countless books and films to generate believable characters with a gripping group dynamic, which indicates that there is some kind of realism to it.

Philosophically a key reason to believe that there is no such thing as human nature comes from the Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose philosophy is heavily based around the idea of freewill. Sartre would have accepted that each of us has a background personality and a background situation (these factors he calls facticity), but he would also say that we have freewill, so we are not mere slaves to our nature, determined to act in any particular way: all of us have free-will which gives us control over our behaviour. Someone with naturally violent inclinations can always reflect on himself and his behaviour, and this gives him the option to choose; though it may be difficult he can become a passive person if he chooses to be. Therefore no one is destined or programmed to be good, or to be bad, or to be social, or to be a loner, this is all a matter of choice. Therefore there is no such thing as human nature, the nature we have is one of our own choosing, and what people choose to do varies massively. A life-long criminal can become a good person at any point, so Sartre would say there is a danger with labelling people as having certain characteristics; label someone a criminal and he will probably believe it and stay as one. Of course, Sartre does point out that most people find it easier to pretend that they do not have freedom, and therefore they simply stick with their natural inclinations (“I couldn’t help hitting him, I’m an angry person”) but Sartre would say this was a mistaken self-deception, and he labelled it as bad faith.

Conclusion

So, does human nature exist?  Are there common characteristics that we all share?  If so, then what are they?  And, if someone lacks those characteristics, does that mean they are not a proper human being? These are timeless questions to which there are many possible answers. One of those answers has got to be right, but which one? It is now time for you to decide!!