State of Man and Human Nature

As a product of human action and thought, the debate between the question of whether mankind is born in a state of evil or a state of good is one that drives directly at the core of human nature. I argue that, while mankind has its partial roots in a blank slate of open morality, individuals are themselves born into a state of violent nature that, in its purest form, can be considered evil by contemporary standards. In and of itself, mankind is a species prone to rash and irrational action, short-term goals, and the desperate need to satiate base desires immediately upon their creation. Indeed, it is only through conscious thought and deliberate acts of control based on the need for self-preservation that humans are able to function and remove the capacity for evil action. As a fundamental part of human nature, what we consider “evil” is merely natural; good and evil are moral judgments placed on actions in hindsight and are not relevant concepts in the natural happening of human action. Thus, while human nature is one that is inherently evil, selfish, and aimed at self-satisfaction, it is through the conscious and subconscious indoctrination of society that drives individuals to maintain what we see as moral codes of conduct. The idea that humans are naturally prone to evil and immoral acts can be seen in how humans interact in romantic relationships with other people, and the oftentimes sad occurrences that result from such pairings. By analyzing human romantic relationships, it becomes clear that the human nature of the minds' psyche is without a doubt prone to acts of immorality and evil, and that such acts are a result of the ways in which the human mind functions, and not necessarily a consequence of upbringing or circumstance. 

The “tabula rasa” theory of human behavior, which advocates that mankind is born as a fundamentally blank slate, and is completely able to be molded by societal pressures and upbringing, offers a very particular insight into the determination of mankind's place on the spectrum of good and evil. On one hand, it is clear that if mankind is born inherently neutral and that actions, behaviors, and thoughts are then determined completely by how one is raised, it absolves the basic human element of any fault or blame as to the matter of natural evil. As morals ideas “are voluntary, arbitrary constructions of our own minds that do not require conformity to any external reality”, we see that Locke argues in favor of a system of morality based on the subjective experience of the individual (Mathewson 517). If the entirety of a man's character is formed as a result of his upbringing, any capacity to place blame on the human aspect of a man's nature is without any validity. Thus, if Locke is to be believed, we see that the tabula rasa theory places mankind in a state of unique impartiality regarding good and evil, with human nature merely being the canvas upon which experiences mold the actions and behaviors of individuals. Indeed, this theory can be extrapolated to argue that, while mankind's actions have very real and practical moral consequences, human nature itself is innocent of any claims of evil inception. 

While the origin of mankind's mental and psychological predispositions can be debated, it is clear that individuals themselves are born into a state that, by definition, values self-preservation and success of the self as part of what defines human character. A crying baby, for example, is concerned only with satiating its hunger. Unable and unwilling to consider the costs of its insistence, a crying baby is a clear example by which the fundamentally selfish nature of human character can be seen, free of outside influence. Though a baby is unable, due to its lack of mental development at such an early stage in life, to appreciate the consequences of his actions, it nonetheless offers an obvious method by which mankind is naturally predisposed, prior to social or cultural indoctrination, towards individual desires. Human nature dictates that the self, in almost all cases, must predominate over other competing external forces. The basic, biological need to ensure one's own survival is, in its clearest form, morally neutral and without judgment. One cannot condemn human nature as evil and immoral for naturally preferring the preservation of the self, not when such preferences are without conscious debate or consequence. Instead, criticism can only be applied when the individual makes the conscious choice and makes an actual effort to embrace the inclinations of his natural state. It is the conscious decision to embrace the selfish nature of man that makes the nature immoral, not the character itself. Thus, while mankind's original state is without the capacity to be judged on a moral level, such moral judgment can be applied once humans actively make the choice to accept their natural inclinations and not attempt to live more moral or righteous lives. 

Thomas Hobbes had a different, yet similar approach to the issue of good and evil. As “good and evil are thus not viewed by Hobbes as moral realities, but as psychological phenomena that are relative to the individual and separated from any universal standard”, good and evil become dependent on  (Balakier 23). For Hobbes, self-interest is the primary motivation that drives human action and behavior. More than just agents of mere self-interest, however, humans are perfectly functioning systems that aim to increase individual pleasure and personal satisfaction while simultaneously avoiding all unnecessary suffering. Contrary to Locke, Hobbes argues in favor of human nature that is far more brutal and violent than the innocent and clean tabula rasa proposed by the rival Englishman. Given that, in true Hobbesian fashion, “in a state of nature it is morally permissible to do what, in your judgment, it takes to secures your preservation”, I argue that human nature is not necessarily evil in its original form, but rather that the judgment of good or evil comes as a result of the actions taken with the knowledge of human fallibility fully in mind (Zuckert 93). 

Perhaps the most indicative aspect of contemporary life that pertains to good and evil is that of the romantic relationship and the ways in which individuals base their decisions on what is either morally acceptable or morally improper. In a romantic relationship, individuals often exhibit the common tendency to seek instant gratification and self-satisfaction through the act of infidelity, a clear example of individuals choosing to embrace an immoral and evil act solely on the basis of their own desires. Much like as Hobbes believes, the violation of trust and companionship between a romantic coupling is an act that, by contemporary means, is surely seen as evil, yet is not an objective truth from which a universal morality applies. Instead, by considering the act of infidelity, we see that what is good and what is evil is determined by the application of judgment from the position of hindsight and retrospect, and allows for the individual to cast criticism on the actions of a human agent. The choice to deliberately cheat on a romantic partner is one that, while perhaps justified in the eyes of the performer, is nonetheless an evil act driven by self-interest and the desire for pleasure. Although extramarital sexual behavior driven by the need for self-satisfaction accounts for little “more than 10 percent” of such incidents in the United States in the 1980s, it is clear that consensual and realistic betrayals of trust between two partners is an example of the ways in which individuals utilize their unique standing as moral actors to apply judgment to cases of good and evil (Reiss et al. 399). For the matter of infidelity, it seems that, as I argue in my initial proposition, individuals tend to exist in a vacuum of morality and only apply judgment after the fact. The naturally selfish and pleasure-driven human mind seeks to justify infidelity, which is widely considered to be a great social evil, in the name of its own warped sense of moral righteousness and invulnerability. Not only does this go against Locke's tabula rasa theory of human nature, but lends weight to the Hobbesian idea that the individual is selfish and motivated by the desire for pleasure. 

Whether or not mankind is fundamentally good or evil is a question that is addressed both in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, and other authors. I argue that, while Locke's idea of the “blank slate” may hold some validity, the core arguments of both Hobbes and Locke are correct in assuming that moral judgments are, at their core, fundamentally human creations that come as a result of experiences and socialization. Though I agree with Hobbes that mankind's natural state is one of brutality and selfish desires are driven by individual interest, humans themselves only apply the concepts of good and evil to themselves based on their actions. In other words, the natural state of mankind can almost be considered irrelevant—what matters is the extent to which the individual acknowledges the debate over his natural character and chooses to embrace actions that can be seen as good and moral. It is through the embrace of particular actions and thoughts that determines the moral state of man. 

Works Cited

Balakier, James J. "The Competing Early Modern Epistemologies Of Thomas Hobbes And Thomas Traherne: The Grounds Of Felicity." Mcneese Review, vol. 47, 2009, pp. 18- 47.  

Mathewson, Mark D. "John Locke And The Problems Of Moral Knowledge." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 4, 2006, pp. 509-526.  

Reiss, Ira L., et al. "A Multivariate Model Of The Determinants Of Extramarital Sexual 

Permissiveness." Journal Of Marriage & Family, vol. 42, no. 2, 1980, pp. 395-411.  

Zuckert, Michael. "The Locke Essay: Achievement And Promise." Perspectives On Political Science, vol. 39, no. 2, 2010, pp. 92-96.