Critique Of Condorcet's Argument

Condorcet was an enlightenment philosopher that believed humans are inherently good and therefore are capable of indefinite perfection. He lived in the enlightenment period, so his view of human nature is based solely on what he could perceive through his observations and reason. He doesn’t believe in superstitions and thinks that they will soon be replaced by knowledge, reason, and liberty. Condorcet supports his theory with the premises; any healthy human’s faculty of reason is capable of understanding society and nature, there is no inherent conflict between the mind and the body, and that a person’s interests are paralleled with others interests. These premises support his conclusion that humans are inherently good and as a result are capable of indefinite perfection.
According the Condorcet all humans are born inherently good. He claims that it is a result of bad social institutions that create the bad in individuals. If there were no bad social institutions and no poor upbringing, then every human would be good. Condorcet argues that every crime committed and all vices can be traced back to bad …show more content…
He explains that everyone can use their reason can and should be able to understand the laws governing society and nature. Through using reason and observation alone one can realize that there is no interference between the reasons and the passions. Resulting in the fact that everyone’s true interests are in harmony with one another. He explains that once everyone realizes this that they will come together to create a perfect society with everyone living in perfect harmony. This is all a result of humans being born inherently good. Once morality and equality are perfected then all bad social institutions and prejudices will go away. Ultimately resulting in every human being good and creating the path for society to achieve indefinite perfection for all