Human Nature Vs. Moral Logic Essay

1. What were the costs and benefits to stakeholders of the actions taken by Massey Energy and its managers?

A famous philosopher Socrates once said, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' With that idea, the question 'Are Human Beings Intrinsically Evil?' has been asked by philosophers for many years. It is known as one of the unanswerable questions. Determinists have come to the conclusion that we are governed by the laws of science, that there is nothing we can do about ourselves being evil because we naturally are. Evil is simply the act of causing pain. In this essay I will argue that human beings are born with a natural reaction to 'fear and chaos' to be instinctively evil.

According to Durkheim’s work The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions (DHN), a man has a dual nature which is made up of the body (individual) and the soul (social). He sheds light on this by citing post-Durkheim theories which he does not agree with and which do not solve the problem of this dual nature. Durkheim also uses The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (EFRL) to discuss the religious aspect of the body and soul. Upon reading, it is discovered that as society evolves, so does this “dual nature.”

For example, the Analects of government, sage, virtue, and manners give a sense of teachings and positive philosophies to follow in order to become a good ruler and obtaining and giving respect. While the Classics and ideals of popper conduct, political peace, moral power, love and ideal humanity help to reinforce the Analects by giving an ideology of a humanism. As Confucian gives words of wisdom of establish a community who should act only when necessary, use knowledge for the benefit of all, and to live in peace in order to developed a stronger culture. Confucius gives the Chinese people a focus on the cultivation of virtue and maintenance of ethics, creating a community of righteousness and moral disposition to do good and how one should act in a community. Overall, Confucianism is a source of values, the social code of the Chinese, and a substance of

Directions: Complete the tasks below. Replace the highlighted text with your own answers. Copy and paste your answers to the student comments box in 1.07 and submit for grading.

Evil can be categorized into two forms, moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil is brought about by bad choices that stem from our free will. Natural evil is bad things that happen to people, whether they deserve them or not. The problem with evil is,

For centuries many philosophers, as well as most individuals, have pondered on the question what is good and what is evil. More-so philosophers of all ages have also stumbled upon a more in depth question which is if the intuitive knowledge of man's nature is good, or if it is evil. Many have claimed to have an answer to these puzzling questions yet most of their answers were found to be incomplete and inadequate at a later date. Religion also tried to provide a solution but to my understanding only caused more of an entanglement if anything.

Mencius believed that human nature is good. Every person is born instilled with four main virtues; Righteousness, Ritual property, Wisdom and Benevolence. These virtues will only develop fully if it is nurtured and put to effect appropriately. He also claimed that those who are not virtuous have been “corrupted by the environment” . He believes that “Individual effort was needed to cultivate oneself, but one’s natural tendencies were good to begin with.” In this way, Mencius has integrated elements of Taoism into his theory. Basically, people are born well with good intentions, but they must work to maintain their good nature.

2. Morality is not static because morals refer to personal believes of right and wrong, as well as what one ought and ought not to do. Due to morality having a more personal connotation to it, it would be require not to be static. Each person deals with their own set of challenges and challenges change and adapt over time. Since challenges and individuals change over time, one might have to think that a person’s concept of morality would have to be just as dynamic in order to still complete its function.

The question of what is truly the nature of justice remains an unanswered question as noted by Bertrand Russell in ‘The History of Western Philosophy’ wherein he notes that Socrates was unable to provide a convincing rebuttal of Glaucon’s arguments on justice, and neither have all the social philosophers since, been able to do. Amartya Sen, in his book ‘The Idea of Justice’, has

The Federalist Papers provide priceless insight into the spirits of both human government and human nature. In fact, The Federalist Papers repeatedly acknowledge a basic truth of human existence: humans are naturally selfish, hostile, and full of such characteristics that hinder the continuation of peaceful, harmonious existence. The corruption of the human race permeates even the strongest governments, as history has shown time and again. Ironic as it is, governments must take precautions to guard themselves, even from their very own members, from the very thing that all governments are meant to remedy: the shortcomings of human nature. The means by which The Federalists

The nature inside of humans and why they do things has been debated for many centuries by many renowned psychologists as well as philosophers. Hobbes and Locke were two philosophers who debated whether or not if humans would do good or evil, when left alone. Hobbes argued that there was a reason leaders were needed more over the reason was that they are naturally savage and evil when away from societal rule. Along with Hobbes, William Golding believed that humans revert to their evilness inside when left alone from societal norms and morals. William Golding’s perspective on humanity’s inner nature was mostly developed on what he saw around him during WW2. However, there’s the other side of the debate which believes humans are inherently good and seek to help others out of the empathy inside most people. Locke argued that when humans are in their natural state, they better themselves along with becoming wiser. Additionally, Locke believed that humans were good, even without societal leaders teaching them what is wrong and right. Notably, other psychologists and theories supported and agreed with John Locke. The psychological test and theory of the bystander effect shows that people want to help others who are in danger or in suffering. Even Maslow’s Hierarchy shows that people choose to help others before discovering and bettering one’s self. Both sides of the argument state many interesting points, but most of the evidence heavily leans towards people being inherently good

A moral compass is the moral guide on which a person bases his/her decisions and distinguishes what is right from what is wrong. With our moral compass, we know what rules we should play by. When I was a child, I learnt Chinese traditional wisdom, Confucianism, from my parents and elementary school. The core of Confucianism is humanity, to be altruistic, upright and courteous within the society, from which I got to know the rules I should honor. Never cheat. Be kind and honest. Don't do anything that will hurt others. These become the foundation of my moral compass.

Whether human beings are instinctually good or evil in an elementary natural state is a question that has been boggling the minds of even the greatest philosophers. There is a spectrum of theories that support both good and evil within the human race, each with valid points that explains the range of our interests, being either for ourselves or for others. However, my personal stance is the sensible theory of Altruism. Past experiences and observations allow me to take the stance, and support the argument that humans are caring and genuinely good individuals and have the will and desire to help those around them.

The word “ethics” comes from Greek ethikas meaning character. Today, we use ethics to describe the normative standard of behavior. The history of philosophical ethics has been broken up into five rational methods: Virtue, Traditional, Modern, and Post-Modern Ethics. Within these periods, the philosophy of ethics changed along with the changes being made within society.