Tamara Wolf

Classics 9

Inquiry Project

10 January 2023

The Nature of Humans

0
 Are humans inherently good or bad? Naughty or nice? This is a fundamental question to
basic ethics, and perhaps as old as humanity itself. The most famously opposing views on this
topic are those of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jean Jaques Rousseau (1712-1778), who
over the course of almost 100 years handled a long debate on the nature of mankind. Hobbes
looked very negatively at the nature of humans yet had an optimistic approach to solving the so-
called problem, while Rousseau looked positively at the original nature of humans but
pessimistically at the future, since even though he offered his own social contract, Rousseau still
prophesized the downfall of civilization. While human beings have a natural inclination for
things deemed evil, such as the liking of others’ misfortunes and the desire for power over
others, they strive for justice and have natural compassion and a moral compass. From Plato to
Rousseau, this question has been addressed by many philosophers. It is extremely complex, and
therefore has no concrete answer. However, I believe that humans have the potential to be good,
but the tendency to be bad.

Hobbes describes human beings as vainglorious and self-centred creatures, who in the
state of nature are “poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 84). From his perspective, humans’
moral compass and judgement are unreliable because they are clouded and distorted by the
pleasures and pains which accompany the morality of humans. This is why we must apply
science, facts, and proof-based logic for decision making. Hobbes claims that humanity’s deepest
flaw, which also causes all other flaws, is that we are fearful, and this drives us to be naturally
violent. Left unsupervised, we would fall into civil war.

Although people cannot be fixed, they can be controlled. According to Hobbes, this can
be accomplished by following his version of a social contract, proposed in Leviathan (1651).
Hobbes offers a government style – an allocation of powers – where the absolute control is given
to a sovereign selected by the public. Following this theory, without the correct government,
humans would remain uneducated and uncultured, unsafe and fearful. The sovereign would use
his absolute power to ensure the safety and progress of society, and in turn, the citizens would
obey him at all times.

While Hobbes believed humans were naturally rotten and looked for the right system to
keep them in order, Rousseau thought quite the opposite. He saw man as inherently kind and
altruistic but corrupted by progress and society. Rousseau published two versions of his social

1
contract: Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, in which he
describes the history of humans and the corruption that civilization has brought upon them, and
The Social Contract, often referred to as the Second Discourse, in which he formulates the
optimal fashion of governance. The Social Contract was published in 1762, opening with the
famous phrase “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains” (Rousseau, 2). In this sentence,
he states that as we are born into a modern world, we are stripped of our natural rights: the rights
to life, liberty, and property.

According to Rousseau, one of the reasons the modern world demoralizes mankind is the
formation of inequality. In our world as we know it, there are inequalities like difference of
intelligence or physical ability, and inequalities between social and economical classes and
status. Rousseau differentiates between the two and says that the former is part of what is
decided and sanctioned by nature, and the latter is the artificial result of agreements between
men.

It seems that Rousseau thought the underlying reason for these inequalities is that humans
are unsocial, peaceful creatures, and therefore a society in the midst of a social system is ill-
fitting and entails unnatural violence and immorality. Rousseau does acknowledge that in the
state of civilization, man is able to enjoy more articulated pleasures and a higher level of moral
goodness than in the more primitive state of nature, where man is more similar to other animals.
Yet, he still believes that the benefits of civilization are not worth the price of humanity’s
corruption. His world view is based on the observation that throughout human history,
everything has been continuously going downhill, with ethical actions among people becoming
increasingly scarce and the root of evil in humanity growing stronger every day.

Rousseau did not suggest a government as specific as Hobbes’ proposal, because the very
idea he proposed in the second discourse was so innovative for his time. During the 18th century,
France was ruled by a monarchy. Rousseau claimed this to be an unscrupulous way to control a
country, for each monarch and person at a position of high power would act selfishly without
thinking of the state.

2
 Rousseau proposed that instead of an external sovereign ruling over its subjects, the
citizens would be ruled by their own general will. When comparing their writings to today’s
world, it is apparent that Hobbes and Rousseau’s writings are vastly different. Hobbes’ work
entails all the basic principles of capitalism, and Rousseau proposed a basic idea of democracy.
Our current system involves a democratic voting process, but only to elect a leader who rules
over a state. The current socio-economic system being a capitalist one could be described as
Rousseau’s nightmare – a wealthy and minute percentage of the population acting in self-interest
and holding a colossal amount of power over the rest of the citizens, many of whom live in
poverty.

It is easier to shout at your sibling when upset with them than to calmly explain how you
feel, much alike to the way it is easier to befriend someone by badmouthing a third party. So why
do people, even when they know it is wrong, find it easier to do morally ‘bad’ things? While
humans are capable of both ethical and unethical actions, it is evident that most times it feels
effortless to do the thing construed as bad. This might be an act which is selfish, harmful, or
hateful. Many of the things we do that are referred to as selfish are simply animalistic survival
instincts which we carry with us to this day, like theft, violence, lying, and greediness. From a
child cheering on while a cartoon character receives ‘justice’ to soldiers enjoying the killing of
foreign men, people seem to universally experience schadenfreude, a German term for relishing
in the misfortunes of others.

To study the ethical nature of humans, observing children may be optimal, since they
have a weaker sense of wrong and right, and tend to be less occupied by how they are judged. In
2013, the British Journal for Developmental Psychology released a study showing schadenfreude
in children as young as four, as they laughed at stories of characters falling out of trees and into
muddy puddles, especially when they thought the characters had bad intentions. The desire to
control others comes hand in hand with schadenfreude, once again demonstrated by a range of
people, from young kids bossing their playmates around to power-hungry world leaders.
Consequentially, it seems undeniable that humans have at least a tendency to be ‘bad’, since not
only do they like it, but it also comes easier to them.

3
 While humans are inclined to cruelty and selfishness, they are definitely capable of
altruism and compassion. This has been demonstrated countless times when people risked their
own lives for the sake of others, whether they were strangers or loved ones. This altruism is no
less natural than the selfish acts we carry out for our own survival and wellbeing. In fact,
cooperation for the greater good can be just as vital to human survival as ‘selfish’ survival
instincts. Human beings are capable of great love and friendship, but even more remarkable is
the kindness, generosity, and sympathy they are able to show strangers. Those who would hide
Jewish children and families in their houses during the rule of Nazi Germany, activists and
strikers risking their lives for peace, and even those making sacrifices to save animals in danger.

Some may claim that inherently, man is either good or bad, but looking at actions and
achievements throughout history, it doesn’t seem right. We are given the tools to be either
horrific, manipulative creatures or altruistic saints, and it is our environment as we form into
people and the amount of goodwill implemented in our minds from a young age that determines
whether we will behave in a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ way.

What is good or bad is a question in itself, but one way to tell the difference is that a good
deed makes us and others feel generally good and peaceful, while a bad deed upsets all people
involved and leaves us with a feeling of turmoil and agitation. Our society acknowledges good
and bad, but often drives us to make bad decisions. Much too often, harmful things are
advertised to us in the name of short-term profit, from fast food to time-killing entertainment.
Our society encourages short term decision making, prioritizing money over the common good
and harnessing our fears and insecurities for foreign interests. Although we can become good
people, for the average person it is becoming more and more difficult.

4
 Works Cited

Bertram, Christopher. “Jean Jacques Rousseau.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford

University, 26 May 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu. Accessed January 9 2023.

Cranston, Maurice and Duignan, Brian. "Jean-Jacques Rousseau". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5

Dec. 2022, https://www.britannica.com. Accessed 9 January 2023.

Delaney, James J. “Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Niagara University, https.iep.utm.edu

Douglass, Robin. “Hobbes vs Rousseau: Are We Inherently Evil or Good?” IAI TV - Changing
How the World Thinks, IAI News, 13 Jan. 2022, https://iai.tv/articles

Friend, Celeste. “Social Contract Theory.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hamilton

College, https://iep.utm.edu

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: Or, The Matter, Forme & Power of a Commonwealth,

Ecclesiasticall and Civill. United Kingdom, University Press, 1904.

Humphris, Rachel. “The Relevance of Jean-Jacques Rousseau 300 Years after His Birth.”
UNHCR Türkiye, UNHCR, 28 June 2012, https://www.unhcr.org

Lloyd, Sharon A. “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy, Stanford University, 2022, https://plato.stanford.edu

McCartney, Steve, and Rick Parent. “2.9 Social Contract Theory.” Ethics in Law Enforcement,
BCcampus, 17 Apr. 2015, https://opentextbc.ca/

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, and Walter, Edward Lorraine. The Social Contract: Or, The Principles

of Political Rights. United States, G. P. Putnam's sons, 1893.

5
Schulz, Katrin et al. “Daniel Has Fallen into a Muddy Puddle.” The British Psychological
Society, The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6 May 2013,
https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Sorell, Tom. "Thomas Hobbes". Encyclopedia Britannica, 30 Nov. 2022,

https://www.britannica.com. Accessed 9 January 2023.

“The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.” British Library, https://www.bl.uk/collection-

items/the-social-contract-by-jean-jacques-rousseau.

Ward, Adrian F. “Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We Are Good, after All.”
Scientific American, Scientific American, 20 Nov. 2012,
https://www.scientificamerican.com