HUMAN NATURE
Introduction:
Human nature refers to all the shared attributes of humanity, human nature is those set of inborn characteristics that are shared across the board, and that can be used to understanding humankind in general. Philosophers study human nature in an attempt to understand the innate nature of humans, which makes them respond the way they do in a situation and also to know why the humans chose a course of action or behavior. Theologians and scholars advanced the arguments that:
Dantes:
From the analysis of Dante’s literature, it emerges that trusting people to do “the right thing for the common good” is not sustainable; a case point is the Papacy, which, although expected to offer spiritual nurturing. Spiritual care of the people, the Papacy in the time of Dante gets corrupted by power, and the state and Church end up becoming one. Dante’s arguments illustrate that human nature is fallible easily influenced by lust and desire, and in Dantes, writing power and love emerge as the factors that end up changing the way humans would naturally behave. Dante examines the divine and the influence it has on the future actions of humans (Belliotti et, al, 2011). The inferno illustrates the intrinsic need to lead a better afterlife and the premise that there is punishment for those who go against what their innate reason indicates is the right thing to do. Dante inferno examines what makes humans comply with what is accepted as the norm is fear of punishment and not a sense of doing the right thing.
Geoffrey Chaucer:
Poet Geoffrey Chaucer examined the double-faced nature of human beings. He argued that people are always right in their sight. As such feelings of self-justification were an innate nature of humanity, he advanced that people are blind to their flaws while very critical of the weaknesses of others and as such human nature cannot be relied upon to deliver a favorable response for the common good of humanity as such he advanced on the need for deliberately enforced rules, as humanity was overly being skewed towards evil and disrespect of the universal welfare of other humans. The “Canterbury Tales” on the espouse of “Bath” an allusion to Monarchy and their double faceted life brings to the light question of whether amity and social decorum is lost once individuals amass power and whether power and resources are the corrupting influence on the Person of honor as Monarchy was deemed to be the most learned and in society they offer the way forward. This philosophers’ arguments are important in that it raises the question of social stratification as an overriding theme in leadership, and that is not that evil nature of leadership. Still, they are deliberately eschewing a persona that allows them to retain power. The court of public opinion is an innate need in a leader with those with shortcoming needing to devise means to ensure they are loved, as the need for love is an innate human nature. At the same time, psychopathic tendencies arise from a depraved experience, and bitterness, which is the catalyst of social upheaval and disintegration of the public moral fabric, ultimately leads to actions injurious to the common welfare.
Pico Della Mirandola:
This philosopher of the Italian Renaissance debated on the self-dignity of humans. Pico and his contemporaries argued that human dignity, intelligence, and reason will drive a person towards the right course of action and that external control only serves to alienate the natural order of things and that these external controls are not the solution to avoiding social evils but imputing dignity, self-respect, and virtues, along with educating the people is what influences the choices they make. In tying the “nitty gritties” of learned men of letters, Pico raised a huge voluminous discourse that was so candid that he offered that he would be willing to challenge anyone who was opposed to his dissertation of human dignity, by a summation of different culture and scope of his study Pico expressly stated that all culture that is civilized uphold the need for human dignity and honor as these are innate in creating self-efficacy in an individual, Pico elucidates that there’s an intricate human nature across all culture on the premise that the need for respect is an innate human character borne of a free will and that all humans irrespective of social class are favored towards the argument that respect, honor, and integrity are core values and in essence part of any societies that is progressive persona.
Niccolo Machiavelli:
Machiavelli’s work focuses on how to get what you want while creating a feeling of contentment in your peers, juniors, and those you wish to overcome. His work underlines the need of humans to amass materials wealth and hold authority over others. This philosopher elaborated on how to get what you want with the least amount of resistance, his work focuses on perception, and that right and wrong, good and evils are points of view or rather perceptions that one can use to personal advantage. Machiavelli’s discourse espouses on the mischievous nature of human which is an innate need that drives personal accomplishment, Machiavelli’s assertion that power and wealth is not evil but a vehicle that drives development arise out of the competitive nature of the human species with undertones of “Survival for that fittest theory” being a dissertation that this scholar is espousing.
Desiderius Erasmus:
Erasmus was a humanist who believed in the ability of humans to redeem themselves. His context was arising from the beatitudes, which are Jesus teaching on how to relate to fellow man. Erasmus advanced that all humanity needed was to revert to these core faith values, and all manner of evils and vices would disappear from society. His arguments espouse the serenity of human nature and forbearance and the need to accept what is pre-ordained, a departure from the school of thought that one is expressly evil or good. Dessidarian school of thought hold that one should weigh issues and not sacrifice the self in advancement of lost causes. The “Desidarian dissertation” hold key pointers to response which is a cause and effect school of thought raising the premise that it the nature of humans to respond based on circumstanced and an apt appreciation of an innate individual’s specifics in terms of abilities and skillsets factoring overriding factors.
Luther:
Luther’s writing and documents are formed on the premise that humanity needed to reform Luther believed that the Church had gone haywire in the way they carried out their sacred Duty, Luther thought that there was the need for change. He championed the protestant movement to break away from Papacy. He brought about the notion that humans have potential within their nature to become better and adopt better belief set systems by defiance to the established order. Luther, also known as the father of reformation in the Church, existed at a time when The Papacy had increasingly resonated with tyranny to silence dissidents, and ex-communication was the order of the day. Luther selflessness raises opposition to the unquestioned dictates of the holy see at great peril and danger to his personal safety. Luther arguments bring to light the innate need of human nature to ensure all are justly treated. It also brings to argument Christ teachings that all are members of one body and if one suffers all suffer, Luther despite censor by the Church went on to create the protestant movement an attestation that, defiance can generate good outcomes and that change and continuous need for improvement is by far the up-most overriding theme influencing human nature or preferring the status que or the tendency of humans to choose the path of least resistance.
Thomas More:
More theologized that the original sin is the corrupting influence on people and structures and systems are the remedy for this problem. He advanced that institutions are essential in overcoming the challenges that an inclined person will do wrong not willingly but out of a corrupted human nature. Moore desertion of the utopian existence of human examines the premise that human have created a superficial utopian existence to avoid coming to term with atrocities in society. Moore advanced that the more pain and affliction humanity undergoes the human nature constantly adapt to cushion these ectothermic forces being imposed on them until it reaches the skewing point, where individual can bend no lower, and a breakout appears and a downward retrogressive tread is manifested in the shorter gains made from an oppressive system. This philosopher elucidates the consequences of bending the acceptable community values and natural laws of order to advance a groups or community influence and supremacy, it is a caution against supremacist tendencies that they inadvertently cause revolution and breakdown of social order leading to a state of anarchy.
John Calvin:
This theologian and philosopher examined the precepts of what is justifiable in as far as what one does is concerned. Calving advanced that how one ends up or the nature of an individual is predetermined and that it is not personal effort or choice but a divine purpose that governs the individual’s choices, outcomes, and consequences. This philosopher carved a niche in an argumentative field by advancing justification for behavior and the premise on whether an end justifies the means.
Martin Luther “King”:
A contemporary revolutionary and philosopher of or time Martin Luther against the back-drop of a modernized society that has chosen biased supremacist argument to enslave a sizeable portion of the population. Luther arising from a background of oppression of persons of color who were surviving against all odd argued that human nature is not meant to survive in the chains, but its better off for a people to die fighting than fall begging for mercy and clemency. Ruther advanced that theological discourse was deliberately skewed to assert the superiority of some races over the others. The divine nature of all humans and the need for respect of those wee deem inferior Luther Martin advanced is in essence an inferiority complex on the part of the slaver or authorities. Luther’s assertion that people with innate potentiate are more likely to be censored, and restricted in order to ensure conformity and to avoid upsetting the perilous utopian existence and allusion to supremacy. Luther questioned the con that rules are meant for the good of all and advanced the systemic diabolical nature of entrenched oppression had led to some “powers” embracing the fall. Luther advanced that oppression is the clearest indicator of a failed state in humans as opposed to material and sense gratifying wealth amassing goals
Thomas Hobbs:
Advanced the theory that the government should have absolute control over the people, Hobbs was of the idea that the common welfare was guaranteed in an absolute monarchy, and he opinionated that the monarchs are what would ensure social order, avoid social disintegration and form a common base of loyalty and accountability for the people. Thomas Moore principle of absolute control attract to the premises of greed and the need to amass and conquer all around. It is a theory set in an “Empirian” era with undertones of an apologetics.
John Locke:
Advanced a theory on a state or governance system where people enjoy freedoms while the state offers oversight to ensure the rights of all are respected and that violators are punished, he was disagreeing with Hobbs idea of absolute Monarchy and was for people to be allowed more freedoms and the right to amass wealth and property as the basis of an advanced society. John Locke locked down the assertion that freedoms are valuable while the need for order is espoused by need for government.
Plato:
Plato Crito a document ascribed to Plato and Socrates is important to understand human nature and why a course of action is chosen by an individual. The overriding factors from the “Crito” include; Personal honor and dignity, Communal sense of responsibility, personal family responsibility, matters of faith and culture, and ultimately the legacy a person leaves behind. From Plato’s Crito it is apparent that Socrates is willing to sacrifice his own personal ambitions and welfare for the common good and to uphold the established statutes and sanctity of the law. Though the rulers are sentencing Socrates to hang on trumped-up charges, he remains adamant that the sanctity of the law lies in the protection of the social order. The “Crito” raises the argument that the law must be seen or deemed to work, so as to encourage adherence, with men of virtue and honor called upon to offer personal sacrifices to avoid an imposition of anarchy in the society, and in essence ultimately forms a culture of responsibility in matters of communal welfare. While Plato tries to offer all manner of dissuasion implying that in every nature there are opposing elements, and that the core values instilled in an individual are the infallible or incorruptible nature in humans. The time this text is written is a time of growth in philosophical discourse and political turmoil, in a contemporary Socrates era where the rights of the individual Person are enshrined in the common law. The persons in authority thou statutes and structures to guide them are in place, they willfully pervert justice to retain power, against the back-drop of an ignorant populace. The Crito is a text that aims at awakening and spurring of revolution in that it brings out the need or the innate nature of human to assert themselves and live free. The paradox in the “Crito: aptly surmises the arguments of these men of letters in that that high ideals and honor and the need for respect and keeping one’s word are part of socialized human nature in any civilized society.
Discussion
The different theologians and philosophers above examined the motivation behind the excesses of church leadership, which the felt had become an oppressor as opposed to the guardian of the peoples’ welfare. The Church is viewed against the irony that while it should be custodian and champion of the peoples’ welfare, it’s the leaders allow the corrupting influence of power and materialism to divert them from what they clearly know is the right way to run the affairs of the people. The moral authority of the Papacy is questioned, and the writers imply that religion is only being used as a guide to protecting, and common virtues and goals are sidelined with careless abandon as individuals become mere powerful and accumulate more resources.
The nature of the people to believe and follow their leaders is examined with the implied assertion that it is not like people to question authority except in extreme cases of violation of what is perceived as the humane way of doing things. Human nature is critiqued from the premise that humans change according to their circumstances, and also based on the premise of the consequences for their actions humans are more compliant in doing the common good for other humans, with the threat of punishment in the afterlife forming the premise of these reformation time philosophers on why humans need to obey and ultimately why the majority choose to do the right thing.
Religion, traditions, and superstitions influence human nature and the teaching of religious teachers form the precepts of what is acceptable or not in society. Sin is a condemnation of doing what is hurtful to others with vices being frowned upon with the society frowning upon certain behaviors and ultimately terming those behaviors that threaten everyday existence as sin. The family unit is another area that human nature manifests with the way a child is brought up, ultimately influencing what kind of people they become. The need for continuous improvement in humans cultivated in humans with constant reminders to stop the people from each turning to his desires. The premise that personal desires are not common across all humans underlines the need to create a system to govern the people and ensure compliance. Religious authorities cannot just preach and expect that the teaching will influence human nature but rather set guidelines and rules that govern human nature when dealing with each other. As such, humanity left on its whims according to the scholars would quickly degenerate to anarchy, and as such, there is a need to curb the excesses in human nature to do all manner of vileness and evil.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, human nature is very unreliable to do the right thing, and humans ultimately need coercive elements of authority to treat each other fairly. Human beings, over time, deliberately violate the welfare of others; as such, the human nature is skewed at selfish motives that arise out of the need to survive and gather enough resources. The demand to amass resources creates greed in humans, which ultimately corrupts their human nature, and humans end up committing grievous atrocities out of the premise that they will not have to suffer any consequences. The consequences of doing the wrong thing are ultimately more reliable at ensuring humans do the humane thing than reliance on the goodwill of individuals. The common sense of looking after the welfare of one another is a nurtured characteristic as humans are born with a primal need to survive (Adler & Brett, 2014). At the same time, social order and conformation to values arise out of the collective desire to work together towards the accomplishment of social development. The need to be accepted by society by large influences on how humans behave or act as the social nature of humans has evolved to cushion and ensure survival and as means of guaranteeing all the people get a fair share of the common resources.
References:
Adler, A., & Brett, C. (2014). Understanding human nature: The psychology of personality. Oneworld Publications.
Belliotti, R. A. (2011). Dante’s Deadly Sins: Moral Philosophy in Hell. John Wiley & Sons.
Winnicott, D. W. (1988). Human nature. Taylor & Francis.