The Philosophy Of Human Nature

Question of Identity: What does it mean to be human? Are humans more important than animals?

In Genesis the word of God leads humanity in the direction of self preservation, urging them to procreate, to ”Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:1), and to minimize hostility and violence among people. As Freud asserted, “Besides the instinct to preserve living substance and join it into ever larger units, there must exist another, contrary instinct seeking to dissolve those units and bring them back to their primeval, inorganic state” (Freud 77). Genesis exemplifies the struggle between the two opposing human instincts, with God acting as a moderator between them. Forms of justice are put into place in an attempt to control these drives, one example being the proclamation that “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The ethics and laws that develop throughout Genesis seek to “prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence” but are unable to control “the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness” (Freud 70). Since they cannot be completely eradicated, the scriptures instead play into the more negative aspects of human nature, especially narcissism, and manipulate them into a force for conservation rather than annihilation.

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.

Human nature by essence has been the cause of many entrepreneurial paths, all follow to known the essence itself behind of what we conceive as life. Moreover it’s righteous description and abstract content, that many great man has humbly studied and that for centuries have made a path closely enough to the understanding of it, yet far from the light, it seems to be and unsolvable question that gives us a “Raison d'être” to our existence in this world.

Morals are set standards of right and wrong for society as a whole. One ’s self image of morals are what the individual thinks is right and wrong according to what he or she learns; however, this “Internal compass” can be influenced because society controls most of what they learn. One’s self image of morals allows an individual to provide compelling arguments, provides emotional stability and allows for an individual to have predetermined views of right and wrong; on account of the fact that said individuals choose to follow the revolutionary figures who provide a strong base for the creation of one’s self image of morals. In most cases, religion plays a major role in the creation of this aspect of identity; made evident in Martin Luther

“There is a sufficiency in the world for man’s need but nor for man’s greed”- Mohandas K.

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

There are countless religions around the world with various opinions on moral teachings. Moral teachings are vital in a religious group because they guide our actions and teach us how to behave in our everyday lives. Judaism and Buddhism express their values of abortion, homosexuality as well as euthanasia in exceptionally similar fashions. Similarities and differences between the two religions will further be explored.

In the article titled “Christian Vision of a Person”, Patrick McArdle seeks to explain the question of what it means to be a human person, and in doing so seeks to assist or enhance people’s understanding of Christian Ethics and Anthropology. From a modern, first world perspective, the question at first glance appears to be a simple one. However, when we read further, this appears not to be the case. His article takes an almost tripartite approach to defining the human person. He looks much deeper than the socio-biological aspects of humanity and gives us an insight into the metaphysical qualities that help us form our opinion of what it means to be a human person. In the later part of the article, McArdle goes on to talk

The Enlightenment View of Human Nature The above issue shows ‘Access the enlightenment view of human nature. What are the wider implications of different concepts of human nature?’ I have citied the main principles of this discussion and I have understood the facts and yet there is so much so depends on our conception of human nature.

Many researchers have tested the theory that humans are naturally war-loving. A fair viewpoint, from the article “Evolutionary Life”, is that “human nature is not one thing, neither 'good' nor 'bad' overall. People in general have been genetically endowed by evolution with a wide variety of tendencies and capacities that respond to -- but are not necessarily controlled or determined by -- their environment" (Atlee). With this, it’s fair to draw a line between how humans were “made” to act and how they act today. In the earliest stages of human life through the present, humans have fought, hunted, and killed their way through life. Today’s difference to the past is not much different besides the means we use to go about the deeds. Businessmen, politicians, and numerous other professions utilize harmful tactics in order to get what they desire. For example, a politician exposes the underlying “evils” of another candidate in order to gain votes, much like how the infamous Salem Witch Trials were pursued in the late seventeenth century when others cried witch in order to avoid being tortured and killed themselves. While one may argue that cavemen were, in some aspects, biologically different than we are today and that they were not exposed to as much as we are, one cannot argue that we are not still instinctively caveman-like. We hunt and gather food; we create new and improved ways of killing enemies or food source; and when we don’t like how or what someone else is

As human beings, we have all experienced the notion of being plagued by a single, paralyzing, and perhaps irrational fear. Often seen as a point of weakness and fragility, fear is an integral part of human nature and for the most part, cannot be destroyed, but merely conquered. Touching Bottom follows the female protagonist in her endeavors through her life in relation to her fear. A major variable in her life is swimming and being around water, as the story kicks off with her struggles in learning to swim. She undergoes a traumatizing experience with a leech at summer camp, leaving her paralyzed with a fear of murky water, and leeches specifically, a fear she carries on with her throughout her life. Forward to the protagonist as a married

A person’s idea of ethics guides them through difficult life concepts such as right and wrong, or good and evil. This allows a person to define set principles and standards that they have conducted based on these beliefs. This decision can be founded on religion, culture, or their own general beliefs. In our postmodern society, it is not anything out of the ordinary to have these different options that help us define morality. C. S. Lewis, explains in his book, Mere Christianity, that even with all the many options, the only clear way for a person to derive a set of rules for themselves is to base it off the words in the Bible.

To many individuals, morality and religion are two related but distinct ideas. To be specific, morality consists of principles set by societal norms concerning the distinction between right and wrong and good and bad behaviour among persons. Alternatively, religion involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality or a superhuman controlling power, God. In many societies in the past and present, the idea of God is used to help reinforce moral codes as valuable and vital through rituals and methods of presenting the teachings of God. By many, religion is used to instil fear