On Human Nature

It is common for humans to be presented as being separate from and even antagonistic with nature. In particular, some radical environmentalists portray human beings as inherently waging war on mother nature, that our existance is intrinsically destructive to nature. But this is erroneous. Humans are a product of and part of nature themselves. There is no separation between humans and nature in this sense. The ecosystem ultimately absorbs us back into it. It is a dynamic system. Whatever effects modern civilization has on the ecosystem are ultimately trivial. It will adapt to us and we will adapt to it. If anything, the relationship is symbiotic, not a one-way street.

A common idea, derived in part from Hobbes, is the notion that humans are inherently in a conflicting state of nature, and that we have developed the capacity to form "society" as to leave this state of nature and enter a state of civilization in which we interact for our mutual benefit. But in reality humans never leave a "state of nature". We are always in one. The real question is "what will we make of this state of nature?". Civilization is still a product of and a part of a state of nature. The notion that we have the power to overcome nature in this way is utopian in that it assumes that we can "plan" a change in our own basic natures. But no matter what form of social organization we opt for, human nature remains the same.

The question as to wether humans are inherently good or inherently bad is a false dychotomy. Humans are inherently neither. What they are is inherently free, capable of choice. Wether or not they are good or bad can only be determined as a result of the choices that they voluntarily make. Humans are capable choosing both good and bad. Without choice, good and bad are meaningless as concepts, for we would be no more responsible for our actions than a rock falling down a cliff. Morality ceases to exist in the absence of choice. So both Hobbes and the uber-optimists are wrong. Humans are not naturally "war of all against all", and neither are they naturally virtuous. They can only be virtuous as a result of their free choices. Man is a rational animal, meaning that we possess the capacity to choose either path.

Determinists, particularly biological determnists, seem to make the error of thinking that nature dominates humans in the absolute. Radical subjectivists seem to make the opposite mistake of thinking that humans determine and dominate nature in the absolute. The truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes. On one hand, humans cannot act in any way that violates the laws of nature. We are bound by the confines of physics and biology. We have freedom to act, but freedom does not equate to power over nature. For a human being relying solely on their natural faculties, there is no such thing as the "freedom" to leap 1000 feet or fly into the sky. Humans cannot simply wish whatever reality they want into existance.

Of course, none of this validates the premises of the determinists. The fact that we must function within the confines of nature does not mean that our actions are causally predetermined in the absolute. Nor does it mean that we are entirely bound by our instincts. We possess a capacity to defy our insticts. If this were not so, men would mount every woman they see, noone would go on fasts and noone would commit suicide. Humans possess volition; the capacity of self-awareness. While the individual's faculties are determined by biology, their use of those faculties is up to them. They must be exercised through an act of will, and if they are not exercised then they will atrophy over time. A strong man can choose to not use their strength, and an intelligent man can lay their intellect to waste. On the other hand, a weak man and an intellectually hampered man may push their abilities to their limit.

While a human being is born into a particular environment that they did not choose, they are presented with a multiple of possibilities as to what to make of that environment. Praxeologically speaking, they may choose among multiple possible means to desired ends. We act in order to remove a source of disatisfaction, otherwise we would not act. And to choose to do nothing is still an action. Acting consists of ranking our desired ends in a particular order and persueing means towards those ends, in a process of trial and error. Over time, we may change the ranking of our desires and modify the means that we persue towards obtaining them. Desires are theoretically infinite, while existing resources and the means towards obtaining them are scarce. Therefore, there is always a compelling reason for acting. Our nature is set up so that we cannot reach a stalemate in which no action is possible, unless of course we are afflicted with a serious mental disability.

Published Wed, Jan 2 2008 11:43 PM by Brainpolice
Filed under: , , , , ,

Comments

# IrishOutlaw said on 02 January, 2008 11:40 PM

"Determinists, particularly biological determnists, seem to make the error of thinking that nature dominates humans in the absolute."

And they irritate me in the process. If I hear one more time that the Self Ownership Principle is contradictory, I am going to snap.

# Brainpolice said on 03 January, 2008 04:51 AM

Ha. I've always thought that a determinist is being hypocritical in even trying to debate you. If their theory is true, it would be no different then placing two television sets in front of eachother.

# martinf said on 03 January, 2008 03:45 PM

Hi Brainpolice. Good points. I would like to ask your opinion about an argument that is made supporting the view of human beings as inherently bad: it is said that THIS is proven by the behaviour of children, meaning that they are too selfish and only think of themselves, they don't mind hurting others.. etc. maybe you've heard about this.

And what you think of seeing human beings as possesing a tendency to evil, that can be offset through life: education, experience, etc. I think that this view is held by Jewish philosophy.

Thanks for your thoughts.

# Brainpolice said on 03 January, 2008 06:26 PM

Well children are not fully developed yet, so certainly such an arguement would not be valid to describe the behavior of adults. But while children may be little brats sometimes, they also start to rather intuitively recognize a "yours vs. mine" dychotomy fairly early.

Education and experience certainly can offest negative tendencies. I'm not too informed on Jewish philosophy though, even though my mother is Jewish. I suppose good parenting obviously plays a role in keeping such tendencies at bay.

# martinf said on 03 January, 2008 07:44 PM

Yes, that's a goot point to make in favor of your "theory".

Just some spontaneous thoughts:

I would personally hold the view of the inherent negative tendency. When we are born, we naturally tend to do things that after doing them, we are told they're wrong. A child learns this way what's wrong and right: test and error process. But, although children can be said what's wrong, they might repeat it again and again. They are usually very stubborn and try to get what they want, whatever they need to do.

It is true that they recognize "yours vs. mine", but, do they respect it? They might fight against the other child in order to get what they want (say, a toy). There is, of course, a learning process through childhood. But, it would seem that the first reactions of a child are "bad". So, there might be an inherent negative tendency that should be offset through time. Nevertheless, that tendency will always last and keep inside ourselves.

Anyway, I'm conscious that adult behavior could not be explained by these arguments. I was just thinking a bit randomly.

# Torsten said on 09 January, 2008 10:38 AM

Could you also give some names and texts of these radical determinists so that we can test what they said ourself?

# Brainpolice said on 10 January, 2008 12:38 AM

I'm mostly working with my experience from debating determinists online and elsewhere. I cannot help but conclude that they denigrate the role or scope of human reason. But I will gladly find some official determinist sources if you give me the time.

# Juan said on 01 February, 2008 06:04 PM

I think that, if anything, children are naturally 'libertarian'. It is, or it should be young people the ones to oppose the old order.

# Thorsmitersaw said on 25 February, 2008 01:19 AM

"Of course, none of this validates the premises of the determinists. The fact that we must function within the confines of nature does not mean that our actions are causally predetermined in the absolute."

<b>Why?</b>

"Nor does it mean that we are entirely bound by our instincts. We possess a capacity to defy our insticts. "

<b>Could it just be part of that same predetermined flaoting around of molecules that gives us that ability?</b>

"If this were not so, men would mount every woman they see, noone would go on fasts and noone would commit suicide. Humans possess volition; the capacity of self-awareness. While the individual's faculties are determined by biology, their use of those faculties is up to them."

<b>Aren't the 'they' jsut a pile of molecules though?</b>

# Chris said on 18 August, 2008 04:38 PM

I don't get it. You say "The fact that we must function within the confines of nature does not mean that our actions are causally predetermined in the absolute." Does that mean its random? Isn't it either caused by something or random? I remember being taught that theres no such thing as true random. And wouldn't that screw with causality?