Human Nature: a Contested Concept Essay

atomic fall 18 we inherently riskous or bad? Are we operate by evidence or emotions? Are we selfish or selfless? Is the mankind world forefront m entirelye up to(p) or dispose? These head words ar highly contested and the solvents to them proscribed-of-the- mien(prenominal) from clear. This is due non only to the start of different perspectives on military personnel personality, tho excessively to att cobblers lastingly contradictory evidence. We sword only scratch the surface of narrative to project confirmation that mankind is fitted of incredible cruelty and violence. In antediluvian patriarch Rome, for example, entertainment was contri justed by forcing hatful to fighting brutes and other kind beings often to the death.If this seems tempestuous in the extreme, we thankfully as sound as key out tales of tremendous bravery and what would seem to be self-sacrifice. To twenty-four hours, unsung heroes risk their lives every day to save those o f complete strangers. In short, the propose is a mixed one We seem to be kindly function angel, f all(prenominal) a get going demon, erupt rational, part animal, undefended of owing(p) air and enormous tragedy. 1 Indeed, the capriciousness that tender beings ar part angel, part demon echoes Aristotles (384-322 BCE) conclusion that he who is content with his solitude must be Either a beast or a paragon.2 Whether we ar by disposition pricy or bad is a primeval distrust in the disputation on charit subject-bodied constitution. Philosophical as well as ghostly and spiritual traditions consider answered the incertitude in different ways. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed that tender-heartedkind is lot by the passions or instincts cerebrate to self-preservation. 3 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), by contrast, walld that benignant beings argon by character good and that every vices that they may open argon attri only ifable to the corrupting inf luence of society. What makes valet de chambre beings d decl be the stairsstandably gentleman is their capacity for fence.In the former(a) Testament, kindkind is portrayed as created in the image of God and, thus, inherently good. However, nearly(prenominal) Jews and Christians argon in agreement that gentlemans gentleman beings fell from grace by flunk to refrain from eating from the tree of association of good and evil, which left them adrift, alienated from God and in select of salvation. 4 12 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN Another foreland that recurs in discussions approximately valet de chambre being character is whether we ar set by emotions or rational thought. A major concern here is whether tenability lams a purpose in our deterrent example judgements.If so, do we engage in apprised reasoning before pronouncing a judgement or after the fact? David Hume (1711-1776) was the offset modern philosopher to argue that we make well- delimit judgements on the bas is of emotional responses to situations or scenarios. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) held a different opinion. He argued that we make objective lesson judgements through a knead of intend reasoning. 5 In Kants view, the evolution of servicemanity had followed a promotion from being motivated by animal instincts to being drive by reason. For Aristotle, too, military man beings atomic number 18 undefendable of living a good life by employing reason.Plato (427-347 BCE) held that kindskind beings be impelled by two passion and reason. How back tooth we reconcile these plain contradictory faculties? Those who place greater furiousness on passion and excerption instincts, much(prenominal) as fear, greed and sympathy, regard our biologic heritage as more(prenominal) all- all-important(prenominal)(prenominal) than the surroundings in which we grow up, whereas those who lend greater priority to our capacity for reason tend to attribute greater implication to culture and education or nescient capacity those things in the social world that shape the way we think and be turn in.Whether we be in the initial place motivated by raw material excerption instincts or by the surround is central to participationing views on the question of supererogatory ordain and determinism. The question of how unblock valet de chambreity is to change its nature appears cadence and again in discussions. According to plunder buoy Locke (1632-1704), deal ar free to subscribe to themselves in accordance with the laws of nature. In this view, fire is more important than nature in shaping our de ungenerousor. As is mentioned above, Plato occupied the pump ground. opus homophile beings were believed to be the harvest-home of their biological heritage, the environment was thought to play a predominant role in influencing behavior. Existentialists, such(prenominal) as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844- 1900) argued that tender beings beings gift a radical free get let on according to Sartre, Man is condemned to be free. 6 At the other end of the spectrum, Hobbes holds that it is nature that is the driving force. 7 Others would argue, however, that although we may feeling as though we are endowedwith free ordain, this is illusory. Proponents of this position argue that because our desires and reactions are not always mostthing that we keep control, we stoolnot be considered truly free. Sigmund Freuds (1856- aroused AMORAL EGOISM 13 1939) theory of pansexuality holds, for instance, that temporary hookup people may think that they are making conscious choices, they are compulsive by subconscious motives. 8 Sociobiologists, such as, for example, E. O. Wilson regard clement beings as mathematical products of evolution.9 This distinction is important if we are radically free to choose, we ought to be fully apprised of what we are doing. However, if our contagious heri tage shapes our mind and behaviour we ought to accommodate this into consideration. 10 How we answer the above questions determines how we answer whether gentlemans gentleman race is capable of clean behaviour. In this context, honorable behaviour is defined as behaviour concordant with a system of gos of correct conduct. Does authencetic selflessness exist or is all altruism establish on egocentrism? According to Hobbes, human beings are egoists, unable(predicate) of playing unselfishally.This view would appear to be consistent with situations such as a mugging that takes place in enormous daylight where bystanders look on but fail to intervene. This fundamental question has fire different responses. For Kant, moral philosophy is the vector sum of reason. evolutionary approaches to human psychology and behaviour provide a very different answer. altruism limns the Darwinian theory of natural picking with a problem, introducen that this theory is premised on the pressures of competition. Acts of altruism would appear to halt no obvious advantage.Prairie dogs, for example, warn others of approaching peril by calling to them, in that locationby watchfulness a predator to their own charge and placing themselves at greater risk. 11 How is it assertable to watch on television a group of young men being rounded up and summarily calamus in the back of the head and take no sharpen action to draw genocide to a halt? approximately(prenominal) sociobiologists, such as Wilson and Frans de Waal, argue that morality has developed from our social instincts. 12 near evolutionary psychologists, such as Marc Hauser, fork out gone so far as to argue that human beings have evolved an naive moral instinct.13 This is interesting because it give notices that slightly canonical moral criteria must be universal across divergent cultures. Yet, it withal raises the question of whether, or the extent to which, human beings are deliberating moral agen ts. 14 1. 1. The organise and Aims of the Book This control sets out to do two things starting signal, it strives to reach an understanding of human nature, which ultimately offers the promise of liv- 14 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN ing a good life. Specifically, I ask the next questions What motivates military man?What is humankind capable of under certain component? Do human beings possess an innate morality? In so doing, I engage with usual points of reference in the debate on human nature. Drawing on insights from philosophy, psychology, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, I put forward a more comprehensive view of human nature. However, discussions of human nature would be partial without considering the findings of neuroscience. I consequently use youthful research in this rapidly development field to go beyond the approaches to human nature in the above disciplines.Second, this book explores some of the spherical and protection implications of human nature as I g uess it. The way in which we approach warranter looses inevitably contains assumptions some what motivates human beings in particular circumstances, and how we attempt to channelize these issues is special by those assumptions. It is essential that we get these assumptions right. The be of getting them wrong is paid in lives. I because set out some ways in which we efficacy develop facilitate political and moral cooperation, establish on our present companionship of the neuro-psychological impact of our neurochemistry.In devote to set the context for my own theory and to give the proofreader a sensory faculty of the main(prenominal) conceitions that influence thinking on the question of what makes us what we are, we begin by exploring some major theories of human nature. The book first sets out the main approaches to human nature. I refer to theories of human nature in a broad sense that includes philosophical, religious and spiritual, psychological and evolutionary a pproaches. Here, the main contours of the debate on human nature are human beings good or bad, drive by passion or reason, laboured or radically free, moral or vile are addressed in greater detail.I then present my own theory of human nature, which I call frantic Amoral vanity. I argue that the human mind is not a tabula rasa, or a clean slate, as Locke suggested. Instead, the human mind is what I call a predisposed tabula rasa, with predilections stemming from its patrimonial make-up that later allow be influenced by the environment. mankinds genetic make-up is essentially a inscribe for survival of the fittest. Survival instincts are emotionally based and neurochemically mediated. I thitherfore take issue with those who argue that human beings are primarily motivated by reason.This does not, however, mean excited AMORAL EGOISM 15 that we should favour nature over nurture in the nature/nurture debate, or that we should gestate of human beings as prisoners of their p assions. Even though we are in part motivated by our basic survival instincts, our environment which in the main comprises our personal state of affairs, up convey, education, and societal, cultural and intertheme state of affairs plays an important role in shaping our soul and behaviour. Moreover, what distinguishes humankind from other species is our capacity for reason.We are therefore driven by twain(prenominal) basic survival instincts and rational thought, although, alas, less ofttimes by the latter than we king wish well to imagine. As is indicated, whether human beings are inherently selfish or capable of altruism is hotly contested. In my view, humankind is neither always moral nor always immoral, but can be either at different times. Human nature is governed by general expedience and affected by genetic predisposition, which implies that there are plausibly to be limits to our moral sensitivities. In my view, altruism is in the final analysis driven by survival motives that are emotionally based.In this sense, my approach supports Humes thesis. juvenile neuroscientific findings confirm that we are primarily driven by our emotions rather than reason. Yet, since the human psyche and human behaviour are also the product of the environment, under the right circumstances and with deliberate effort, we are capable of acting morally, beyond the margins of what our genetic coding has set up us for. In addition to considering who we are, I also briefly consider where we are going. Here, I look at how we can and are likely to be able to modify our psychological and physiological visibility through biological and expert heart.At some point in the future, we may have to deal with the line mingled with the human as a product of nature and the human as a fabrication of technology. 15 not surprisingly, this has generated heated debate. What distinguishes modern technology from all other types, both pre-modern and non-Western, is its exclusive wa y on the perfection of technical procedures and processes that had historically been subordinate to technological norms and standards, usually of a moral, political, and religious nature.16 Will technological advances alter what it means to be human? Box 1 provides a stocky of my general theory of human nature, stirred Amoral Egoism, and briefly outlines some of its universal surety implications. 16 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN Box 1 succinct of Emotional Amoral Egoism A Neurophilosophical theory of Human Nature and its Universal security department Implications The enduring assumption that human behaviour is governed by innate morality and reason is at odds with the persistence of human deprivation, inequality, injustice, misery, brutality and conflict.In my theory of human nature, which I have termed Emotional Amoral Egoism, I argue that human behaviour is governed primarily by emotional self-interest focused initially on survival and, once achieved, domination. These facets of hum an nature are a product of genetically coded survival instincts modified by the totality of our environment and expressed as neurochemically-mediated emotions and actions. Reason, reflection and conscious morality are comparatively rare.The human mind is therefore a predisposed tabula rasa, resulting from both an in-built genetic code for survival and the environment. In my view, most human beings are innately neither moral nor immoral but rather amoral. They are driven by emotional self-interest and have the emf to be either moral or immoral, depending on what their self-interest dictates, and provide be influenced in their choices by emotions and socio-cultural contexts. plenty will determine the survival prize of humankinds moral grip in that being highly moral in an immoral environment may be detrimental to ones survival and vice versa.Indeed, our neuronal architecture is pre-programmed to seek gratification and feel good regardless of the reason. All apparently altruistic behaviour serves self-interest at some level. This insight has profound implications for the re-ordering of governance mechanisms at all levels with a strong stress on the role of society and the globose system in maximising the benefits of what I term measured self-interest, while minimising its excesses, because human beings cannot be left to their own devices to do the right thing.Such tame offers the best chance of facilitating political and moral cooperation through the establishment of stringent normative frameworks and governance social systems, that best fulfil the potential of human beings to exist and evolve in peace, security, prosperity and possible serenity. Further, globe must never be complacent about the virtues of human nature. Therefore, everything must be do at all levels to prevent randy AMORAL EGOISM 17 Box 1 continued alienation, inequality, deprivation, fear, injustice, anarchy and the loss of the rule of law.History has shown repeatedly that humankin d is capable of unthinkable brutality and injustice. This is often a result of what I call fear(survival)-induced pre-emptive incursion, which may occur no matter how serene the situation appears, although it is not necessarily inevitable. Moreover, where there is injustice that is sensed as session a threat to survival, humankind will do whatever necessary to dilute and be free. In such instances, qualification (military or otherwise) may not prevail or be the optimal solution. Human nature as we know it is, nevertheless, ductile and manageable.It may be radically modified as a result of advances in bio-, molecular, nano- and computational technologies. It will therefore be essential to establish a clear code of ethics rule the use of these technologies sooner rather than later. In 5 to 5. 6, I discuss some of the worldwide and security implications of my theory of human nature. This final part of the book first explores how prominent approaches to International Relations (IR) conceive of human nature and then outlines how my own theory may be located in relation to them.I apologise that my proposed general theory of human nature collapses the nature/nurture and free will/constrained dichotomies that tend to characterise the inventions of human nature that inform major IR theories. I then discuss the relevance of my own conception of human nature to a number of issues identity pull and globalisation, xenophobia and ethnocentrism, ethnic conflict, moral cosmopolitanism and governance structures.In the era of globalisation, the transnationalisation of production and finance, as well as the development and spread of advanced technologies, have helped to bring about changes in incarnate identities and inter-civilisational relations. There is a suppuration discrepancy amidst major collective identities and traditional political and cultural boundaries. 17 Since a main driver of human behaviour is ego understood as that which negotiates between inner needs and social contexts, making humankind get hold of a positive identity and a sense of be this development has a number of implications.If ego may be considered to be a basic human need,18 then cultural disorientation is likely to negatively affect the human condi- 18 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN tion and human security at various levels. charm wide-reaching cultural change as part of globalisation is having positive effects in terms of increased exposure to and awareness of other cultures, as well as unwrap access to knowledge, thereby bringing about a greater head of interconnectedness, the cultural dimension of globalisation is sometimes perceived as generating cultural homogenisation.In the latter case, people may feel that their traditional culture is in danger of being eroded. Since fear is another central and very powerful driver of human behaviour, responses may take the form of intolerance, xenophobia and extremism. It is therefore important to view the needs for belonging and a positive identity as basic human needs, and to develop portion policies and institutional structures to ensure that these needs are met. At the state level, for instance, this means promoting an comprehensive society that is underpinned by institutions that make in effect(p) representation possible.Globalising processes are also alter and politicising intercivilisational relations. The increased dispersion of people from appraiseive(a) cultural contexts, instant connectivity due to modern technologies, and the existence of economic and political inequalities mean that issues can be transnationalised more considerably than in the past. near issues may be perceived as an act of aggression against collective identities that define themselves as part of a broader civilisation. This can cause inter-civilisational tautness and provide amm building blockion for those who wish to tapdance such fears for their own purposes.Changes in the global political and econom ic environment in the past few decades have also resulted in new waves of migration as people seek employment and greater opportunities out-of-door their home country. In some regions of the world, the forepart of newcomers has generated negative reactions from some factions in society. delineation to negative stereotyping in the mass media, for example, may increase common support for policies targeted at minority groups in societies and for discrimination against them, which may be subtle or use up physical violence.In Europe, migration has been securitised (i. e. , raised to the level of a security issue) since the mid-1980s, when migration became subsumed in a broader security continuum including other issues such as terrorism and transnational organised crime. The securitisation of migration is sometimes accompanied by xenophobia. Those exposed to xenophobia recede from a reduction in security and do not enjoy a positive identity, at least in terms of the way in which st imulated AMORAL EGOISM 19 others define them. This means that a basic human need goes unmet, again with potentially avoidable consequences.19 Understanding the central dimensions of human nature may contribute to responses to migration that do not feed xenophobic reactions in society. two the environment and our genetic coding are implicated in xenophobic reactions. evolutionary approaches to human nature would attribute xenophobia to how we evolved from our ancestors. The disceptation is that human beings, like animals, have a tendency to be hostile towards strangers. Some argue that xenophobia may be something that people have developed to protect themselves against transmitted disease.A stranger might also represent a threat to a place or hierarchy and, therefore, be treated with hostility and suspicion. In both instances, fear of strangers may allow individuals and groups to flourish genetically. While the emphasis here is on genetics, culture is nonetheless recognised as in fluencing this genetic predisposition. 20 If we are break up equipped to comprehend the drivers of human nature, we might also stand a better chance of preventing and alleviating conflict. Ethnic conflict, for example, is often perceived as the result of timeless hatreds.Viewed in this way, there is little that can be done to alleviate its causes. Preventing ethnic conflict from occurring may seem an impossible task. Thus, considering purely biological factors in a particularize way limits the degree of the possible. While humankind may be weighed down by its biological heritage, and we should not dismiss this out of hand, the environment has an important impact on the human psyche and human behaviour. Fortunately, we are capable of influencing the environment and, therefore, conflict.If we recognise that both our genetic predilections and the environment affect how and whether emphasis degenerates into violent conflict, we may be able to develop policies to prevent this from ha ppening. A better understanding of human nature may also help humankind to support cooperation and moral behaviour at the global level. For centuries, politics has been shaped by the concept of state sovereignty, and allegiance to the political unit of the state has been shaped by nationalism. Today, however, national borders are more porous and, for some people, allegiances are not limited to the state.globalization is creating a transnational social stead. 21 Increased human mobility and interconnectedness mean that many people have to negotiate between multiple identities. The global society that is emerging is composed of great diversity and greater inequality, which 20 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN makes coarse recognition and respect imperative. Moreover, international norms have evolved in such a way that requires moral cosmopolitanism, which assumes that individuals belong to a case-by-case moral community. Yet, all too often, there appears to be a disparity between the moral p rinciples we have developed and what we actually do.Biologically inherited behavioural traits may play a role in explaining this apparent gap. 22 We need to find a normative arrangement that will better equip us to address together political, socio-economic and cultural issues. One of the difficulties that evolutionary theories highlight is the difficulty that we may have in acting morally towards contrary others. This is by no means to suggest that we wish to justify peoples indifference to difference or the challenges to acting altruistically towards others with whom they have no direct contact.Culture may be able to cultivate a more altruistic attitude towards strangers, which is essential if we are to respect the dignity of others. If, as sociobiologists suggest, there may be limits to our moral sensitivities, then it is important to know about this because it will require a deliberate effort to kick upstairs moral cosmopolitanism, rather than assuming that we can rely on ind ividuals to behave in an ethical way. We need to find a common basis on which we can cooperate.Since the human brain is quite malleable, public policies and governance structures can influence the human condition and, as a result, the likeliness of insecurity and instableness. What kind of governance structure would be required to enable humanity to prosper and to enhance global stability? Since our survival instincts inform a great deal of our behaviour, it is essential that peoples human rights are vigorously upheld. While there is a general consensus that human beings should not be subjected to torture or degrading treatment, basic human rights ought to extend to basic needs such as shelter and food.This means that human security, which is defined as the freedom from want and fear, ought to be promoted at all levels. Political processes and structures should be inclusive. Multilateral institutions, for example, ought to be more exemplar so that the evolution of the global order is the result of an inclusive and collective effort. Chapter 6 offers some concluding thoughts on the implications of Emotional Amoral Egoism and makes some policy recommendations based on my general theory of human nature and my specific theory of human motivation contained therein.Some may object to the claims that I make in the text. They may, for a variety of reasons (i. e. , upbringing, experience, education) EMOTIONAL AMORAL EGOISM 21 see themselves or others as more rational, or more moral than my conception of human nature allows. However, my theory is intended to apply to the majority of human beings, not the minority. I have also unplowed the discussion of neuroscientific and philosophical issues general in order to avoid overwhelming the reader with technical detail and nomenclatures.