What is Human Nature?
A critique of the utopian ideal
Hsun Tzu famously claimed that humans are evil, and although I wouldn’t opt for such emotive terminology, I believe that he was on the right lines. Humans are not evil; but they are inherently bad. Evil suggests something much more sinister, a plotting mind with a purpose for destruction. Rather, the process of evolution has determined human nature as innate and selfish, with survival and self-preservation an unconscious priority.
I comprise this article into five sections, comprehensively describing human nature, and, more importantly, how our understanding of human nature determines Government as a reflection of such natural tendencies. Section 1 will offer a more plausible alternative …show more content…
What I infer from this is that behind every intentional action performed by an agent, there is an expectation of a self-regarding ends in which otherwise the agent would not have been compelled to act upon. The key distinction between both doctrines is small but fundamental in determining the plausibility of such thesis. Strong psychological egoism suggests every action one performs is done so in order to secure a self-regarding end, whereas weak psychological egoism puts forward that every action one performs is done at least expecting to secure a self-regarding end. In this new thesis, it is possible that an agent can come to another’s assistance with a desire that the other persons distress go away, although it suggests that the agent would not have performed the action if they hadn’t expected to realise any self-regarding ends. That being said, this is not to say that the agent intended to realise any self-regarding ends upon performing the action, which is important as it highlights the fact that man is capable of doing good. Although this self-regarding desire may not be involved with the practical reason for acting, the agent would not have acted unless they had at least expected to realise the self-regarding
A critique of the utopian ideal
Hsun Tzu famously claimed that humans are evil, and although I wouldn’t opt for such emotive terminology, I believe that he was on the right lines. Humans are not evil; but they are inherently bad. Evil suggests something much more sinister, a plotting mind with a purpose for destruction. Rather, the process of evolution has determined human nature as innate and selfish, with survival and self-preservation an unconscious priority.
I comprise this article into five sections, comprehensively describing human nature, and, more importantly, how our understanding of human nature determines Government as a reflection of such natural tendencies. Section 1 will offer a more plausible alternative …show more content…
What I infer from this is that behind every intentional action performed by an agent, there is an expectation of a self-regarding ends in which otherwise the agent would not have been compelled to act upon. The key distinction between both doctrines is small but fundamental in determining the plausibility of such thesis. Strong psychological egoism suggests every action one performs is done so in order to secure a self-regarding end, whereas weak psychological egoism puts forward that every action one performs is done at least expecting to secure a self-regarding end. In this new thesis, it is possible that an agent can come to another’s assistance with a desire that the other persons distress go away, although it suggests that the agent would not have performed the action if they hadn’t expected to realise any self-regarding ends. That being said, this is not to say that the agent intended to realise any self-regarding ends upon performing the action, which is important as it highlights the fact that man is capable of doing good. Although this self-regarding desire may not be involved with the practical reason for acting, the agent would not have acted unless they had at least expected to realise the self-regarding