Human Nature Philosophers Have Contemplated

Human Nature Philosophers have contemplated the innate nature of mankind for many centuries, asserting that human nature is inherently good, evil or neutral. Mencius, a Chinese philosopher from the fourth century B.C.E. believed that human nature was good. He held that the temperament of the heart and mind were set in an ethical direction from birth and that mankind's function is to nourish this inclination (Shun, 2010). Conversely, Hsun Tsu, a Chinese philosopher from the third century B.C.E. felt that human nature is inherently bad.

He argues that if Mencius' position were correct than there would be no need for institutions, rituals and duties that were established to bring order to society. The fact act we require these is evidence that people's propensities are bad (Robins, 2008). Thomas Hobbes, a seventeenth century English philosopher believed that the natural state of man was a "state of war." Hobbes espouses the view that the instinct for self preservation is very strong and each of us has a right to preserve himself.

This right provides that one may act in any way that might be judged necessary to ensure one's preservation. This right becomes, in practice, an unlimited right to do anything. Furthermore, Hobbes believes that people should adopt whatever means necessary to their most important ends. These ideas together portend serious conflict in situations where there is competition for resources.

If there were no common authority Hobbes believes everyone would be free to act as one thinks best to further their own gains, thus a state of war, a war of "all against all" (Lloyd and Sreedhar, 2009). Jean-Paul Sartre, a twentieth century French philosopher, presupposing that God does not exist, believed that every man was responsible to make others aware of what he is and the full responsibility of his existence rests on him. Thus, Sartre thought man existed in three conditions, anguish, forlornness and despair.

The first condition, anguish, is derived from the belief that one has to consider how his actions will affect others, the choices one makes in order to define his existence to others means taking an active participatory role. The second condition, forlornness comes from the acceptance that there is no God therefore he is on his own. On one hand this means that absolute freedom, on the other this means man is solely responsible for his existence and future. The third condition, despair, is a manifestation of will.

One has the capacity and capability to decide whether or not to engage in any activity or take any action. Once there is no longer control or involvement, one should disengage (Flynn, 2010). I believe man is neither inherently good nor evil. I think the nature of man is an individual thing and is essentially the product of environment (such as home, education, and culture) and genetics.

There is certainly a propensity of evidence to support Hobbes assertion that people are essentially selfish when viewed in the light of Enron, Wall Street, Bernie Madoff and the like. However, there are also many people who look at the world through a more benevolent lens than Hobbes and are more content than Sartre's portrayal of existence as nothing more than anguish, despair and forlornness. I believe most actions are motivated by the desire to fulfill needs, or at least perceived needs.

I believe that some needs, such as shelter, food, etc. are basic while others are of.