Human Nature: Good or Evil?

As individuals, we have choices about what direction our lives take us. Ultimately, what we choose is
our decision: however, are our decisions influenced by what we are deep inside? Is there a common
human nature in all of us: if so, is that nature good or evil?

Throughout history philosophers, great thinkers, and “every day” people have discussed human
tendencies. From the early dynasties of the Chinese to the Enlightenment thinkers of 18 th century
Europe, this topic has been hotly debated. For this lesson, we focus on the Enlightenment thinkers
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who proposed different opinions regarding human nature. Hobbes
believed that humans were naturally selfish, greedy, and cruel, while Locke contended that people were
naturally reasonable and moral.

You will be looking at accounts from both philosophers and having a civil conversation with your table
about whether human nature is naturally good or evil. You will be given a side for which you will
debate for, however, at the end of the lesson you will get to write about which side you ultimately side
with.

Background

The late 17th and 18th century was a period of many changes. Between discoveries in science and
disagreements over religion, people were questioning traditional ways of living and knowing. Thinkers
called philosophes (“Philosophers” in French) were particularly hopeful that they might discover new
ways to understand and improve society.
Is mankind inherently good or evil? John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two people that had
opposing views on this subject. They are the fathers of modern political science because their views on
man being inherently good or evil was discussed in regard to should there be a monarchy (Hobbes) or a
democracy (Locke).
Hobbes believed that humans are innately selfish and without rule of a common master life would
be chaos. Men are wicked, selfish, cruel and would act on behalf of their best interests. He believed that
we are inherently evil. We always look out for ourselves. Hobbes believed that the purpose of
government was to keep the law and set standards for people.
Locke believed that we are social animals and know what is right and wrong. Not all men have
bad inside of them, if we have moral principles then we can have peace. He believed that the purpose of
government was to protect individual liberties and rights. He believed mankind could be trusted to govern
themselves because we can make right decisions.
BBC Article: “Are we naturally good or bad” by Tom Stafford
14 January 2013

Fundamentally speaking, are humans good or bad? It's a question

that has repeatedly been asked throughout humanity. For
thousands of years, philosophers have debated whether we have
a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, or a basically
bad nature that is kept in check by society. Psychology has
uncovered some evidence which might give the old debate a twist.

Mechanistic: mechanical volition: Desire

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

One way of asking about our most fundamental characteristics is

to look at babies. Babies' minds are a wonderful showcase for
human nature. Babies are humans with the absolute minimum of
cultural influence – they don't have many friends, have never been
to school and haven't read any books. They can't even control
their own bowels, let alone speak the language, so their minds are
as close to innocent as a human mind can get.

The only problem is that the lack of language makes it tricky to

gauge their opinions. Normally we ask people to take part in
experiments, giving them instructions or asking them to answer
questions, both of which require language. Babies may be cuter to
work with, but they are not known for their obedience. What's a
curious psychologist to do?

Fortunately, you don't necessarily have to speak to reveal your

opinions. Babies will reach for things they want or like, and they
will tend to look longer at things that surprise them. Ingenious
experiments carried out at Yale University in the US used these
measures to look at babies' minds. Their results suggest that even
the youngest humans have a sense of right and wrong, and,
furthermore, an instinct to prefer good over evil.

How could the experiments tell this? Imagine you are a baby.
Since you have a short attention span, the experiment will be
shorter and loads more fun than most psychology experiments. It
was basically a kind of puppet show; the stage a scene featuring a
bright green hill, and the puppets were cut-out shapes with stick
on wobbly eyes; a triangle, a square and a circle, each in their
own bright colours. What happened next was a short play, as one
of the shapes tried to climb the hill, struggling up and falling back
down again. Next, the other two shapes got involved, with either
one helping the climber up the hill, by pushing up from behind, or
the other hindering the climber, by pushing back from above.

Mechanistic: mechanical volition: Desire

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

Already something amazing, psychologically, is going on here. All

humans are able to interpret the events in the play in terms of the
story I’ve described. The puppets are just shapes. They don't
make human sounds or display human emotions. They just move
about, and yet everyone reads these movements as purposeful,
and revealing of their characters. You can argue that this “mind
reading”, even in infants, shows that it is part of our human nature
to believe in other minds.

Great expectations

What happened next tells us even more about human nature.

After the show, infants were given the choice of reaching for either
the helping or the hindering shape, and it turned out they were
much more likely to reach for the helper. This can be explained if
they are reading the events of the show in terms of motivations –
the shapes aren't just moving at random, but they showed to the
infant that the shape pushing uphill "wants" to help out (and so is
nice) and the shape pushing downhill "wants" to cause problems
(and so is nasty).

The researchers used an encore to confirm these results. Infants

saw a second scene in which the climber shape made a choice to
move towards either the helper shape or the hinderer shape. The
time infants spent looking in each of the two cases revealed what
they thought of the outcome. If the climber moved towards the
hinderer the infants looked significantly longer than if the climber
moved towards the helper. This makes sense if the infants were
surprised when the climber approached the hinderer. Moving
towards the helper shape would be the happy ending, and
obviously it was what the infant expected. If the climber moved
towards the hinderer it was a surprise, as much as you or I would
be surprised if we saw someone give a hug to a man who had just
knocked him over.

Mechanistic: mechanical volition: Desire

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

The way to make sense of this result is if infants, with their pre-
cultural brains had expectations about how people should act. Not
only do they interpret the movement of the shapes as resulting
from motivations, but they prefer helping motivations over
hindering ones.

This doesn't settle the debate over human nature. A cynic would
say that it just shows that infants are self-interested and expect
others to be the same way. At a minimum though, it shows that
tightly bound into the nature of our developing minds is the ability
to make sense of the world in terms of motivations, and a basic
instinct to prefer friendly intentions over malicious ones. It is on
this foundation that adult morality is built.

Hobbes on Human Nature

Human beings are physical objects, according to Hobbes, sophisticated machines all
whose functions and activities can be described and explained in purely mechanistic
terms. Even though itself, therefore, must be understood as an instance of the physical
operation of the human body. Sensation, for example, involves a series of mechanical
processes operating within the human nervous system, by means of which the sensible
features of material things produce ideas in the brains of the human beings who
perceive them. (Leviathan I 1)

Human action is similarly to be explained on Hobbes's view. Specific desires and

appetites arise in the human body and are experienced as discomforts or pains which
must be overcome. Thus, each of us is motivated to act in such ways as we believe
likely to relieve our discomfort, to preserve and promote our own well-being.
(Leviathan I 6) Everything we choose to do is strictly determined by this natural
inclination to relieve the physical pressures that interrupt upon our bodies.
Human volition is nothing but the determination of the will by the strongest present
desire.

As Hobbes acknowledged, this account of human nature emphasizes our animal

nature, leaving each of us to live independently of everyone else, acting only in his or
her own self-interest, without regard for others. This produces what he called the
"state of war," a way of life that is certain to prove "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and

Mechanistic: mechanical volition: Desire

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

short." (Leviathan I 13) The only escape is by entering into contracts with each other
—mutually beneficial agreements to surrender our individual interests in order to
achieve the advantages of security that only a social existence can provide.
(Leviathan I 14)

Locke Quotes
“We are like chameleons, we take our hue and the color of our moral character, from those who are
around us.”

Premises
Issue Locke Hobbes

Man is not by nature a

Human social animal, society could
Man is by nature a social animal.
nature not exist except by the
power of the state.

In the state of nature men mostly kept their promises and

honored their obligations, and, though insecure, it was
mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant. He quotes the
American frontier and Soldania as examples of people in
the state of nature, where property rights and (for the
“no society; and which is
most part) peace existed. Princes are in a state of nature
worst of all, continual fear,
with regard to each other. Rome and Venice were in a
The state and danger of violent
state of nature shortly before they were officially
of nature death; and the life of man,
founded. In any place where it is socially acceptable to
solitary, poor, nasty,
oneself punish wrongdoings done against you, for
brutish, and short.”
example on the American frontier, people are in a state of
nature. Though such places and times are insecure,
violent conflicts are often ended by the forcible
imposition of a just peace on evil doers, and peace is
normal.

Conclusions
Issue Locke Hobbes

The Social We give up our right to ourselves exact If you shut up and do as you are told, you
Contract retribution for crimes in return for have the right not to be killed, and you do

Mechanistic: mechanical volition: Desire

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

impartial justice backed by

not even have the right not to be killed,
overwhelming force. We retain the
for no matter what the Sovereign does, it
right to life and liberty, and gain the
does not constitute violation of the
right to just, impartial protection of our
contract.
property

No right to rebel. “there can happen no

If a ruler seeks absolute power, if he
acts both as judge and participant in
Violation of
disputes, he puts himself in a state of
the social
war with his subjects and we have the
contract
right and the duty to kill such rulers
and their servants.
breach of covenant on the part of the
sovereign; and consequently, none of his
subjects, by any pretense of forfeiture,
can be freed from his subjection.” The
ruler’s will define good and evil for his
subjects. The King can do no wrong,
because lawful and unlawful, good and
evil, are merely commands, merely the
will of the ruler.

Civil society is the application of force by

Civil society precedes the state, both
Civil Society morally and historically. Society creates
order and grants the state legitimacy.
the state to uphold contracts and so forth.
Civil society is a creation of the state.
What most modern people would call civil
society is “jostling”, pointless conflict and
pursuit of selfish ends that a good
government should suppress.

You conceded your rights to the

Rights Men have rights by their nature
government, in return for your life

Whatever the state does is just by

The only important role of the state is
Role of the definition. All of society is a direct creation
to ensure that justice is seen to be
State of the state, and a reflection of the will of
done
the ruler.

Authorization is meaningless, except

that the authorization gives us reason
to believe that the use of force is just.
If authorization does not give us such The concept of just use of force is
Authorized
confidence, perhaps because the state meaningless or cannot be known. Just use
use of force
itself is a party to the dispute, or of force is whatever force is authorized
because of past lawless acts and
abuses by the state, then we are back
in a state of nature.

Mechanistic: mechanical volition: Desire

Human Nature: Good or Evil?

Mechanistic: mechanical volition: Desire