Historical Figures and Human Nature

by Clay Damron

            What is the nature of the human condition? Over the course of history, various political thinkers and historical figures have exhaustively debated this topic.  Are humans inherently good or bad?  This is one of the many questions that each human must ask himself.  Thomas Hobbes asserted that humans are evil, and consequently need a strong ruler to maintain order in society.  Locke argued that humans are neither good nor bad, but that good ethics can be imposed by society.  Rousseau believed that humans are inherently good but are corrupted by society.  But which of these theories is the most accurate representation of reality?

            Hobbes’s argument that humans can only be coerced into goodness by an ironfisted dictator is severely flawed.  The imposition of authority alone cannot alter the tendencies of a human.  Order might be maintained through fear of punishment, but people will eventually revert to their primal behavior.  No level of authoritative power can change the nature of humanity itself.  Furthermore, anyone that is given absolute power will become corrupt if allowed to rule for long enough.  In many ways, placing limitations on the power of rulers is a more effective way to maintain law and order.  The human race is not entirely wicked, and the last thing needed is more leaders to muddle with affairs and impose countless regulations.

            Rousseau’s theory that humans are somehow “corrupted by society” has a level of truth to it.  As humans grow and develop, their environment strongly influences their perspective on life.  If an individual is raised without emphasis placed on morality, he will surely be corrupted.  But what if a society influences a person in a positive way?  If society condemns thievery, then members of that society will be less likely to steal.  While society can potentially corrupt an individual, it can be beneficial in certain circumstances.

            Locke’s argument is perhaps the best.  He states that the human race is neither inherently good nor bad.  Each and ever human is characterized by the decisions they make throughout their life.  Using reason, he argues, humans can be taught to be good.  This assertion is the most reasonable, as it is the only one that accounts for the free will of man.  Instead of arguing that human nature controls the behavior of individuals, he argues that the collective tendencies of all humans are what characterize human nature. 

            Humans are born without labels.  None of us are born good or bad; the only legitimate way to judge the character of an individual is through the decisions that they make.  Of course, many of the decisions we make on a daily basis are influenced by the moral code (or lack thereof) that was imposed upon us early in life.  It is the job of religion, law, and society to insure that the moral standards of future generations are not corrupted.  This responsibility is hardwired into the mind of every human; it lies somewhere within our genes.  Our ability to distinguish right from wrong is paramount to our survival as a species.