Human Nature The Way We Are
Weve learned back in our science courses the premise of natural selection which is commonly associated to the idea that only the fittest organism can survive and adapt to the changes of time. Figuratively, this well-recognized phrase has also become the basis for human beings and their life and purpose on earth. If we try to put it on the same ground, we may arrive at the proposition that humans survive to live and that they must be the strongest among others in order to survive. Consequently, this suggests two things that men are innately good or that the life of men is naturally solitary, nasty, poor, brutish and short and men are ought to care about their self-interests which make them selfish and bad.
The legendary philosophers and scientists of our time had long ago argued the existence of mankind. To us, it has always been who-do-you-believe situation and we eventually create questions in our minds. Philosophy answers who we are while science dictates what we are. Another area of thinking is psychology but although it is like cognitive science, the explanations it can give are also built on the epitome of philosophical analysis.
Psychologist and theorist Carl Rogers along with Abraham Maslow, accepts that men have a human nature and so are born good. They theorized on positive human life and self-fulfillment. Rogers would say that men are propelled to do well for growth, development and personal fulfillment (Davis and Palladino, 1997, p. 542). On the other hand, Maslow would place self-actualization on top of his Hierarchy of Deficiency Needs theory on why men are motivated to grow and work hard.
A lot of issues have been set forth to argue if men are born either good or evil. And a lot has also been discussed about the correlation of morality that standardized human behavior. Weve known that goodness reflects on the ability of a person to help with no reward or altruism (Davis and Palladino, 1997). In contrast, weve also been brought up with judgment that evil deeds are those that hurt, destroy, or harm. If men are naturally good, how would we respond to Platos story of the Gyges invisible ring Or, if men are naturally bad, how would we place ourselves in the example made by Mother Teresa
Altruism is a prosocial behavior supported by many of our theorists and their colleagues (Davis and Palladino, 1997). But many of our psychologists, ethologists and sociobiologists still have their own belief on what drives us to be the way we are, such as when we tend to offer our help or none at all. Many have been proving and disproving the existence of true altruism since everybody doesnt have the same view of mankind. Theorist Robert Cialdini and his colleagues believed that extrinsic (money or praise) or intrinsic (a boost to the ego) factors are behind the altruistic feats. On the other hand, Daniel Batson and his colleagues disputed that true altruism is a genuine phenomenon impelled by empathy and little compensation (Davis and Palladino, 1997). We are left with wonder that men are naturally bad because if true altruism is real, then, men are naturally sensitive to others feelings.
Conversely, we cannot ensure that men are born kind because in psychology, many have also been trying to study on the physical or psychological behavior of men to harm someone or something which is called aggression (Davis and Palladino, 1997). It is said earlier that what we conceived to be wrong is something that hurt, destroy, or harm. Thus, the occurrence of aggression among men may imply that men can be naturally harmful or bad. Our sociobiologists would acclaim the fact that the goal of mankind is to survive and in order to survive men should increase the survival of their own genes. Hence, sociobiologists see it as an adaption to life. But others maintain that aggressiveness is being produced by the environmental conditions. Some psychologists proposed the frustration-aggression hypothesis which states that an individual can act aggressively once hindered in obtaining his or her goal (Davis and Palladino, 1997). Further, the more we get closer to our goals, the more we get frustrated once cut back because of an outside force. The more we become aggressive when we become more frustrated.
Frustration and anger are not the only reasons of our being aggressive. Sometimes, these are attributed to verbal and physical assault. Additional environmental factors can include perception of unjust treatment, aversive environmental temperature or mood and lastly, arousal especially when there is a direct shift from one relaxing moment to a disturbance. More so, European psychologists such as Fathali Moghaddam (1990) realized the influence of various culture or groups (Davis and Palladino, 1997).
Another type of aggression that is concerned with assessing human beings involves the provoking nature of being sexual. Aggression that leads to anger can cause abuse to relationships. Psychologists investigated and examined the effect of sexual aggression and found that increased sexual assaults especially toward women are related to sexual aggression. Incidence of rape happens because of pornography which stimulates sexual violence. If we are to admit that outside factors trigger aggression, we may as well assume that human beings are literally chaste. That means men are innocent and do not intend to do harm. Political theorist John Rawls (1994) would say that men have been through a veil of ignorance where neither of them would know right from wrong. Would it mean that fear, violence and even sex are natural outside factors affecting the being of a person
A study by Tracy Bostwick and Janice De Lucia concluded that women who asked and paid for the bills were the ones who desire sex. Likewise, men who paid for the date assume to desire a demand for sex (Davis and Palladino, 1997). It could have been debatable to choose whether the desire for sex is also a human nature. If so, then it contradicts the thought that human beings were innocent at the beginning of time. We are usually adversarial to the issue of sex and sometimes, rape which is seen as an evil act is often blamed to men who are aggressive and wanting of sexual activity. This keeps us guessing between chastity deemed as goodness and obscenity deemed as profane and irrelevant.
If we move to rely on the personality of human beings, theorists had also scrutinized and continued to share the results of their observation and research. In the area of moral philosophy, we have the philosopher John Locke who entirely supports the notion of the self and consciousness. He believed that we have our personal identity which gives us the reason why people know us as us and why we are different in the way we are. He mentioned that we are animal of such a certain form (Pojman, 1999, p.282). Locke presumed that a person is a thinking individual which makes such person aware of himself. That person knows how to reason and reflect on his own consciousness which is inseparable from thinking. This, according to him, makes a person recognize the self apart from any other thinking things.
If man knows himself, his actions must always be intentional. Alcoholism and drugs are common culprits for sexual aggressiveness leading to a lot of rape cases. If man knows his consciousness, therefore, environmental or any other external factors should be excluded from the self as bad. This brings us back to the question if men are bad in nature.
What sets us apart from lower animals is not objective reality but rather ability to make choices and our individual perspectives in on the world (Davis and Palladino, 1997, p. 539). I believe that human beings are innately good. Understanding humanistic perspective is the best way to explain phenomena. This is why some contest the beliefs of psychodynamic theory and behaviorism because humanistic psychologists are certain of the heuristic value of humankind. While theorists and therapists support their own perceptions of humans, humanistic psychologists such as Rogers and Maslow give more emphasis on the individuals perception of events. Hence, such psychologists were often regarded as phenomenologists, the ones who study experience apparently (Davis and Palladino, 1997).
In that case, I believe that to become moral animal, human beings should be the rational beings Locke was pertaining to and that being moral has something to do with the ability of men to distinguish what is right from wrong especially at the verge of consciousness. People need unconditional love, care and affection (Davis and Palladino, 1997) because this is what they strive to have, without exactly knowing it. As moral animals, human beings, provided that their human nature is good, aspire to be loved and cared.
A person is accepted for he or she is and not for what others would like him or her to be. This is called the unconditional positive regard by Carl Rogers (Davis and Palladino, 1997). The unconditional positive regard explains how the real self and the ideal self should match up to realize self-worth. Saying that love and praise are only received conditionally is like trying to make it hard for the individual to accept what he or she really is.
Our choices complete who we are and why we are the way we are. And these choices are quite influenced by some contributing factors. Albert Banduras Social Cognitive theory gives explanation to why we act the way we do. According to him, the person, the environment and the behavior react upon each other resulting to a combination of the three. These factors are dependent and are connected to each other. Together, they create the brand us. Our being good or being bad is being affected by this mixture. Bandura termed this reciprocal determinism (Davis and Palladino, 1997). He also believed that one factor may be the cause or effect of the other. This means that, the behavior can affect environment the way environment can affect behavior. Our personality can affect the way we behave just as our behavior can affect the way our personality is judged by others.
I agree with Banduras idea of why we act the way we do. At the same time, I believe that men are actually born good. They have this innate nature of helping out if not only driven by needs and interests. It is not human nature to desire for aggressiveness. Instead, aggressiveness surfaced because there are factors which stimulated the feeling. We then make our choices afterwards. Whether the outcome of the action was good or bad, we were left ascertained that we were already been judged according to what we did. So even though, we may believe that we are kind enough inside sometimes it is that what others perceive us to be that accounts for what we ought to be in their eyes.
Maslow may not also be absolute in his order of mans needs and the idea of self-actualization may be far beyond what is tangible. However, Maslow while believing in the positive side of human beings showed that human beings know what a better life is. Accordingly, men know what the right thing is since the time being.
Mankind experiences violence, turmoil and chaos from fellow beings. But this doesnt mean that there are only those that are completely good and those that are undoubtedly bad. All of human beings are good and it is in our human nature. All of human beings have conscience, only difference in the level of endurance. Conscience is what proves to be the heart of the people at the same time. It is something that cognitive experience cannot elaborate clearly.
Just as miracles or near to death experiences, our ability to rekindle a loving and passionate heart should not be criticized even when they seem to appear without substantial evidence. We experience miracles and these become phenomena for us. We experience heaven and this becomes our spiritual belief.
Many have explored the vagueness of things especially those values that we acquire. Science needs not to explain everything. Philosophy needs not to question each existence. Or, even psychology needs not to provide details for every human breakthrough. Things happen and they may happen the way we may not believe. In the concept of men as moral animals, acting the way they are, it is enough to argue that men are rational beings who also mark their own view of morality.
They say in ethics, there is no right or wrong answer. What matters is the decision we make and how we stand or make up to its consequences. Similarly, there is no such adjective as morally upright living. All of us live the way we want it to live. All of us act the way we want it. Its always through instinct and conscience where in the end, we are supposed to rethink if the way we acted was acceptable or not.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment