Human nature: concepts, characteristics, and philosophical perspectives

Human Nature and Capitalism

The 21st century has been labeled the "Century of Asia" with China foregoing its former state-run economy in favor of a capitalist approach to model the way for other emerging nations to become rich and prosperous. This growth in global prosperity flies directly in the face of the ideologies of Nietzsche and Marx who argued that capitalism is invariably exploitive of the masses, especially during its early phases of development. In fact, rather than exploit the masses, capitalism is proving that when human nature is allowed to follow its natural course, the outcome will be mutually advantageous for the people and the state. To gain some fresh insights into these arguments, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature concerning human nature in general and how human nature plays a role in shaping economic and political outcomes as conceptualized by Nietzsche and Marx. A discussion concerning current and future trends is followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

When people talk about "human nature," everyone knows what they mean but many would be hard pressed to explain precisely what it is. What is human nature, anyway? If some behavior is in a creature's nature, the creature will likely behave in that fashion. For example, the parable of the frog and the scorpion has the frog agree to carry the scorpion across a river because the frog knows if the scorpion stings it, they will both drown in the river. When the frog reaches the mid-point in the river with the scorpion on its back, the scorpion stings the frog and they both begin to drown. Before they do, the frog asked the scorpion why it would do such a thing, knowing full well it would kill him too, and the scorpion replied, "Because it's my nature." Likewise, humans will engage in seemingly bizarre and inexplicable behaviors from time to time simply because it is their nature. According to the dictionary entry for the term, human nature is both changeable and immutable. For instance, the first entry notes that human nature is "the complex of behavioral patterns, attitudes and ideas which man has acquired socially."

Other authorities agree with this definition. For example, Heilbroner (1985) cites a scientific basis for what is termed "human nature" and explains that human nature is "the uniquely and universally human experience out of which social behavior is formed."

Conversely, the second entry for the term indicates that human nature is also "the complex of fundamental dispositions and traits of man, sometimes considered innate (belief that you cannot change human nature)."

Because human nature is socially acquired, though, it would appear reasonable to suggest that it can change from place to place and time to time but always within prescribed parameters, otherwise behaviors are viewed as abnormal. In this regard, Scheibe (1995) reports that, "People are expected always to behave in a way that is consistent with their culture's definition of human nature. Role enactments deviating from the cultural definition of human nature cause the actor to be classified as the negative counterpart of a civilized human."

Certainly, everyone likely behaves in ways that could be classified as "the negative counterpart of a civilized human" occasionally, but the general collective fashion in which human nature operates in a civilized society will depend on the mainstream values and priorities that are in place. If people are impoverished and starving, it will likely become human nature to acquire hardscrabble habits and become tough. These people would be admired and viewed as successful and weaklings would be viewed with disdain and contempt. In any type of society where there is no significant want, it may be human nature to pursue loftier goals and perform altruistic acts that are good for everyone. The type of society that is in place will therefore serve to shape the type of human nature that exists since these are socially formed and constructed over time.

From Nietzsche's perspective, human nature tends to naturally divided people into two groups: a natural aristocratic group and a naturally dependent and inferior one and these two groups are constantly in opposition with each other.

According to LeFave (2007), "Nietzsche notes that some thinkers, like Marx and Engels, believe that as mankind develops, the natural exploitation of the weak by the strong will cease"; however, Nietzsche argues this is misguided thinking because it is simply human nature to be exploitive of one's fellows.

In this regard, LeFave advises that Nietzsche believed that, "Exploitation does not belong to a corrupt or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life."

In addition, Nietzsche argues that true equality is not part of human nature, that humans are naturally unequal in terms of a wide range of attributes that places them into the strong or weak categories. According to Nietzsche, "The 'superior' people are those who acknowledge and express the will to power. 'Expressing the will to power' means taking advantage of your natural gifts (physical strength, intelligence, beauty, etc.) to achieve your full potential, which may include achieving dominance over others."

This assertion suggests that Nietzsche may be a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist at heart, particularly when it is used to support the "be all that you can be" argument that follows. According to Nietzsche, "Superior people develop their gifts directly and unashamedly. They do not deny their own nature, their own ability. They face the reality of the competitive struggle with their eyes open and their hearts under control. They eschew sentimentality and pretense. They resist slave ideologies that try to diminish and impose artificial limits on them."

While these qualities may be part and parcel of many entrepreneurs who succeeded where others failed by whatever means necessary, Nietzsche suggests that these same otherwise-desirable qualities of "not denying one's one nature" are criticized by lesser mortals who do not possess what it takes to succeed in a competitive marketplace. In this regard, LeFave emphasizes that, "For Nietzsche, the will to power is the only law and the only 'morality.' Inferior people, who outnumber the superior ones, use ideologies ('slave moralities') like Christianity, utilitarianism, and Marxism, to try to deny the will to power."

In the Land of the Free where the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment mean that everyone is supposed to be equal, Nietzsche's argument that equality is a "silly idea" may appear disingenuous, but it does serve to reinforce the harsh realities of the world as conceptualized by Nietzsche and like-minded theorists. For instance, LeFave points out that "inferior people . . . promulgate silly ideas like equality, and urge silly 'virtues' like humility and pity. But they are trying to live a lie; they are trying to deny obvious facts of nature, and trying to make a virtue of their weakness and cowardice."

It must be conceded that the heady world of capitalism is not for the weak, and the historical record is replete with examples of how it has exploited workers in the past.

Moreover, capitalism is as old as humankind. In this regard, Sayer emphasizes that, "Trade can be traced back into the stone age and one can find many instances of enterprises run on capitalist lines, in the general sense of being oriented to the pursuit of profit, long before the modern era."

Likewise, in a general sense, capitalism has existed in other forms during different times and places in humankind's history in ways that have exploited many by a few. For instance, Sayer notes that, "Weber distinguishes other pre-modern forms of capitalism, not discussed by Marx: booty capitalism, adventurer capitalism, speculation in the spoils of political office, war financing, and so on. But for him, as for Marx, the mere presence of capitalism in sectors of economic life does not suffice to make an entire economy or society capitalist."

In order for the entire economy to be regarded as capitalist, Marx argued "it is typically capitalistic only as the provision of wants is capitalistically organized to such a predominant degree that if we imagine this form of organization taken away the whole economic system must collapse, and this is characteristic of the occident alone and even here has been the inevitable method only since the middle of the nineteenth century."

While the "whole economic system" may soon be tested if Mayan predictions are right, the type of capitalist society that formed the basis for the arguments by Marx and others was only developed fairly recently, then, and this most recent incarnation appears to be the most evil of all from their perspective. For instance, according to Sayer, "The capitalism with which Weber is most concerned is this 'peculiar modern Western form of capitalism', or 'sober bourgeois capitalism.' This is as historically specific a phenomenon as it was for Karl Marx."

What is so evil about this type of capitalism? Well, it would seem that it is just too well organized for its own good, and it inevitably devolves into a system that exploits the weak and oppressed even further in ways that ensure the rich get richer. In this regard, Sayer advises that:

The distinctiveness [of bourgeois capitalism] lies as much in its organization of production. It is the continuous and rational employment of capital in a productive enterprise for the acquisition of profit, especially in industry which is characteristically modern. Bourgeois capitalism alone has produced a rational organization of labor, which nowhere previously existed.

Of course, not everyone has experienced the Horatio Alger "Ragged Dick" rags-to-riches story in the United States, but the fact remains that capitalism provides the opportunity for success in ways that are simply not made available in other economic systems, particularly those that are strictly controlled by the state. The pursuit of filthy lucre since the Industrial Revolution made it possible to do pursue wealth in the United States in even more efficient ways, and Marx and like-minded theorists maintain that this has created a lopsided system wherein capitalism must be regarded with suspicion and fear because of what is can do to those who are not up to its challenges, or so the argument goes.

In reality, though, the United States was fully intended to be a "bourgeois capitalist" society from the outset, and the Founding Fathers were proud of the fact. In fact, they ensured that capitalist values were installed as part of the nation's heritage. It was the Founders' view that it was human nature to enjoy liberty and be free in every sense of the term in ways that would contribute to the nation's collective success. For example, Kmiec (2005) reports that, "While certain aspects of who we are, such as nationality or ethnic ancestry, may be culturally or serendipitously determined, there is a truth to human nature which, if not observed, corrupts or destroys life and any exercise of freedom dependent upon it. Human nature and the natural law it reflects are inescapable."

In fact, it is the capitalist society and government that have provided the framework in which the collective efforts of millions of Americans have created enormous wealth where none existed before, but the infrastructure had to be installed before these desirable outcomes could be achieved. In this area, at least, capitalism conforms to Marxian concepts about stages of capitalist societies and how it just represents one phase in human social evolution. On their way to social, political and economic perfection, Marx and his associates argued that capitalism was a natural but undesirable phase and things would likely be better if humans could simply avoid this step altogether. These pie-in-the-sky views about what really drives the human best, though, ignore the realities of how people act in their own self-interest irrespective of the economic model that is in place. More importantly, it is hard to argue with success and capitalism has a proven track record while the communist nations have largely folded their socialist cards and conceded that it is "glorious to become wealthy."

For the Founding Fathers, though, capitalism was not a phase but rather the fundamental structure that the United States would follow in fulfilling its destiny by providing some constraints on liberty that were dictated by the invisible hand rather than the federal government. For example, this view of human nature and capitalism was specifically addressed Hamilton in Federalist 15 wherein he asks "why, if man is naturally free, has government been instituted at all?" The answer provided by Hamilton is "blunt and rests squarely on a claim about human nature": "Government is instituted because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. Liberty without restraint will not lead to private or public good."

Capitalism, then, is just when the Founding Fathers called for when they were looking for the right approach to delivering on their promises of a free meritocracy where peoples' success was limited only by their own abilities and wherewithal. Certainly, even the best capitalist society will have a few bad apples, but Hamilton was making it clear that without the invisible hand to place some constraints on Americans' human nature, the natural outcome would be more reflective of the Ku Klux Klan or other elitist organizations rather than an altruistic society where individualism and material success were celebrated. In this regard, Kmeic cites another reference concerning human nature and the Founding Fathers:

It is to be expected that men in a collective or group will act badly because the regard to reputation has a less active influence. Think about it, Hamilton admonishes: Liberty will be badly used if joining together obscures accountability. Moreover, a spirit of faction will aggravate these intrinsic human aspects, thereby magnifying the resulting harms. In a group, we will ally with others of like mind in a shameless way to disadvantage or harm others. We will be inclined to use our liberty to pursue improprieties and excesses, for which [we] would blush in a private capacity. The desire for liberty to be well used, once 'we the people' were united in political society, greatly motivated the Founders.