What Is Human Nature?

What is human nature? Human Nature is characteristics or feelings shared by all humans. In “The Midas Touch” Midas is an example of human nature being greedy. Also, in the text “Are We Naturally Good or Bad?” shows that humans are naturally good based on an experiment. Lastly, in the video “The Myth of Human Nature” humans have certain needs that should be met. In all of these texts there are amazing examples of human nature and how humans would act in situations related to the topic.

In Chinese culture, human nature has discussed for few thousand years by Confucians, for instance, Mengzi, Xunzi, Gaozi. Chinese Confucians Xunzi thought is human nature is bad unless humans give efforts and force themselves regarding to standard defined by sage referring to week 2 lecture notes. Comparing Xunzi and Mengzi thought, Mengzi states differently that human nature is good because of four sprouts and it could be bad because the influence of environment. According to Cambridge dictionary, the definition of human nature means the natural ways of behaving most people share without cultural influence. This essay will discuss whether human nature is good or bad and give reasons to agree or disagree to Xunzi statement. In fact, Xunzi statement

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.

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

What defines human nature and the hierarchy of human relations? In this paper, I will argue that Beauvoir 's view that society constructs man, maleness, and the masculine as the human standard (rendering woman, femaleness, and the feminine deviant and defective) is flawed. Although Beauvoir 's evidence was compelling I had several issues with some of the finer details such as what term designates a human being, that a woman 's body is considered disadvantaged, and that female nature is defective. I also disagree with her statement that woman can 't think of herself without man, woman is only a symbol of sex to man, and that man and woman are the Self and the Other.

1st is about Evil, 2nd is about Good, 3rd is about Every Man for Themselves and 4th is about experience. We are going to learn about four men known and revered for their philosophical teachings on human nature, unfortunately all four have very different opinions. Human Nature what is it? Where does it come from? Why, after so many years do we still not know the answer? The philosophers Mencius, Husun Tzu, Hobbes, and Locke are all very passionate in their beliefs and have written different arguments trying to prove their philosophy is the correct one. My job is to figure out who is the most convincing and who has the strongest argument. Which philosopher will be the winner of this debate.

I agree and disagree. Biblically speaking, human nature has been what it is since the beginning of time and will be what it is until the end of time. And yes technology, something meant to be good, has turned out bad in many cases. An example of bad would be when it is used to replace employees; automatic tellers, self-checkouts etc. Everything mentioned in your comment can be directly linked back to human nature. The ‘US Senate’ is a group of individuals voted and given power by a group of individuals. The same is true about the ‘Supreme Court,’ ‘Republican’ and ‘Democratic’ party. The list goes on.

To conclude, the process of basing a state around human nature arguably falls into two camps. Either building to enhance mankind and allow him to prosper or to prevent mankind from his own nature. when using a positive definition of society, the system that usually is constructed can be seen to have developed into a more secular liberal society. A key development can be seen to be societies in the west constructed post enlightenment. The separation of church and state can be seen to be the cornerstone of secular society. The reduction of the power of the church has led man to look for moral justification for his actions outside the realms of religion. Darwin’s on the Origins of Species can be seen to be the most destructive text to the power

In the third instalment of his famous thesis; A Treatise of Human Nature; Of Morals, David Hume determines that morality is a character trait approved independently of social conventions. He goes on to conclude that morals cannot be derived from reason when reason is inert, and can neither prevent nor produce action or affection. Hamlet (1602), Frankenstein (1823) and The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891) are all consumed by the innate passion that Hume defines as ‘morality’, yet pivot around the social conventions of their respective eras, broadly identified as ‘reason’. While Hamlet is embodied by his tendency to reason and rationality, Victor Frankenstein and Dorian Gray’s conformity to the values of their era functions to illuminate the irrationality of their actions.

What quality does human nature follow? Since earlier times this broad and very controversial question has sparked many different discussions and debates in the world. Some people believe man inherently has a good nature and goes against this to perform evil acts. Others say a human automatically begins with a bad nature, but overcomes this to do wonderful deeds. Furthermore, different beliefs and religions have different views on this subject. Asian religions claim that a yin yang trait composes this nature, and Christians say man’s nature follows sin but one can overcome with God’s help. Different answers for this question have appeared, but no matter the differences in the beliefs, they all agree that no matter the traits of human nature,

Jane Addams once said, “The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life.” The same can be said for humanity. Evidence from history supports the concept that inhumane actions are contagious, and for this reason compassion and humanity can not be practiced in parts. Practicing humanity and compassion selectively or in parts creates an inhumane world. Humans must learn to be kind and take care of each other before much else beneficial can be accomplished. Universal humanity insures that all human beings do not have to worry about becoming victim to inhumane actions and violence. Imagine, women, children, and men victims of inhumanity and violence. In order for humanity and compassion to be of any true importance, humanity and compassion must be universal.

Human nature, the essence of what makes a human person what they are, is something that everybody has. Every person is innately a person, but how they put their personhood into action is the biggest indicator of their character, or the projection of a person’s human nature. At their core there is human nature, but their actions are what direct this source of humanity. The quality of someone’s actions is shaped by their environment and sometimes their biological makeup as well. Human nature does not have good or evil characteristics. It is how a person thinks and acts that is the true factor in the shaping of their character.