The Conversation Continues

Peter: Honesty Felicia, you don't want to hear the story. It's not very exciting and doesn't make much sense - even to me.

Felicia: Hey, you brought it up.

P: OK, OK. Let me ask you a question: What do you think human nature is?

F: What's this got to do with your story?

P: Quite a bit, actually. I'm trying to make it interesting and give context - humor me.

F: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "human nature"...

P: Well, when a person is born, do you think there's some kind of programming in place? Instincts?

F: I think there's some, yes.

P: Like what?

F: Well, like the instinct to suckle, to recognize the faces of our mother - stuff like that.

P: What about other things that are, perhaps, not related to the absolute necessities in life like nourishment. Do you think people are born with a certain disposition? Exempli gratia, are some white children born to dislike non-whites?

F: No, I think that is something people learn. Like language. No one is born knowing one but they can be taught.

P: So, what you're saying is is that people don't have specific traits built-in but rather that they have the ability to acquire them...?

F: Yeah, I think that's fair to say. I mean, isn't it obvious?

P: Well, you'd think so but it hasn't always been viewed that way.

F: Why not?

P: Take for instance, the premises that our country was founded upon. Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by liberalism when they wrote the Constitution...

F: You mean they were liberals?

P: No, I mean they were influenced by classical liberalism which today is closest to libertarianism. And the earliest thinkers who contributed to liberalism were people like Thomas Hobbies, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. They all espoused a variation of social contract theory...

F: You're losing me here. What's this got to do with human nature?

P: Patience, Grasshopper. Anyway, social contract theory is predicated on a certain view of human nature. For Hobbes, this was that men are basically beasts. He refers to the "state of nature" in which the life of men was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In other words, without the structure and authority of society, people's true nature comes out - we'd go around stealing, killing, raping, pillaging and such. Capitalism is similar in that it takes for granted that people work in their own self-interest. Locke and Rousseau had a more positive spin on things. For them, the state of nature was different and more positive: we are naturally reasonable creatures. And so freedom and its preservation were paramount as was the idea that governments are not trustworthy, that the power lies with individuals who are tolerant and reasonable in a state of nature because they pursue a set of natural laws given to use by God. Since everyone is free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions", they need a mechanism - contracts. Thusly the role of government is minimal. It's there merely to maintain freedom and to uphold contracts between free people who enter into them of their own volition and with an understanding of the elements of the exchange and the ramifications. For Locke, a gevernment is not there to encourage specific behaviors via any kind of paternalism. This idea lead to the idea of laissez faire capitalism. Add in some utilitarianism and a world in which people enter into contracts for things which they cannot understand and things get complicated.

F: I understand that - but isn't it true? Don't people look out only for themselves? Don't people take advantage of each other if given the opportunity? History is full of wars, and plots and murders - not only was our country founded upon the ideas of liberalism, but also the genocide of the Native Americans.

P: True, quite true. There's no doubt that people have been, are, and will be extremely cruel to one another. But, is this the only behavior, the only attitude that we are known to exhibit? I mean, have you killed anyone? Do you hate everyone you pass on the street?

F: Well, no, of course not.

P: So, why is that? Why are there countless instances of people not plotting against their neighbors, of people giving their lives in war for their country, and the like?

F: As for your first question - people fear punishment. In the second example, they do it for the greater good.

P: But why should a bunch of self-interested people care about the greater good? By definition, they're only out for themselves.

F: Well, for the safety of their families and friends.

P: Ahh...so people do sacrifice themselves for others.

F: Sometimes.

P: Sometimes. Don't people help out their friends and family? Don't we do things for those we care about without expecting something in return?

F: Yeah.

P: Don't people also donate money to charities? Do volunteer work? Help old ladies across the street? Don't we do things for strangers as well?

F: I suppose we do.

P: Don't people voluntarily live in cities? Is everyone rushing out to live in some shack out in the woods like the Unabomber? What do these bahaviors tell us about ourselves?

F: I'm not sure...

P: To me, when I look around, I certainly see lots of bad things. But I also see lots of endeavors - and some of them very complicated, very intricate - which are dedicated to being and bonding with other human beings. I mean, don't you long to find a man with whom you can not only be physically intimate but also someone to whom you can just talk with, confide in? Just someone to be yourself in front of?

F: Of course. Eveyone wants that, I think.

P: Then, in my opinion, that too is part of our nature. We need relationships of all kinds in our lives in addition to all the wars and greed, etc. Human nature is very complicated and can't be reduced, at least not on a practical level, to mere self-interest. Yet so much of our society is built around that principle.

F: So, where does human nature come from? Our genes?

P: This is where Locke comes back into play. He thought that the human mind was blank at birth - a talba rasa - and thusly people learn everything via their senses. But Locke was wrong. So, yes, it seems that we humans have a built-in nature given to us by our genes. But this doesn't make things any simpler.

F: Why not? Can't we just find out what gene does what?

P: Well, no. But even if we could, what then? There doesn't seem to be a greediness gene or any such thing like that. Except for things like hair color, it seems there are very few one-to-one correlations between genes and various effects. Genes work in concert with one another and it also seems that the environment can trigger them as well.

F: So it's not nature vs. nurture but nature and nurture.

P: Most definitely. Man is neither wholly beastly nor wholly reasonable. We have come out of the womb with quite a lot of instincts already there. We have a halo and a pair of horns.

F: So how are we to deal with the our evil sides? With all the wars and injustices? I mean, if they're part of us just as the kinder, gentler parts of ourselves?

P: I think that part of the issue that we are creatures of proximity.

F: What?

P: I mean our greatest sympathies lie with those closest to us. We are most willing to make sacrifices and give of ourselves to our family and friends and then, as people are further from our lives, the willingness diminishes. Perhaps, from the people in our everyday lives, you might go to your community next - those who lives in close proximity to you. Then your town or city. Then state and your country and so on. Thusly, I think that, if we are to move towards a world that is more peaceful and more just, we must figure out a way to make our societies, our institutions expect people to behave in more cooperative ways and make it reward such behavior. It seems that we expect the worst of people and create mechanisms to react to it rather than those which are proactive in encouraging better behavior.

F: And how do we do that?

P: Good question but I don't have an answer. No social engineer and I. But I think we have enough knowledge now to at least think about the proposition in the proper manner. Do you have any idea who you are yet?