"To be honest I never thought of it as something controversial or extreme or unusal, more of a common sense thing..."
Interesting. I have heard it asserted from a theological perspective, of course...(we are born wicked and evil, envy, greed, avarice and all those deadly sins)...!
Here is one of countless theological perspectives on human nature:
jewfaq.org
Or a comment re: Locke's views:
"According to Locke, God created man and we are, in effect, God's property. The chief end set us by our creator as a species and as individuals is survival. A wise and omnipotent God, having made people and sent them into this world:
...by his order and about his business, they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's.
It follows immediately that "he has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, yet when some nobler use than its bare possession calls for it." (II. ii. 5) So, murder and suicide violate the divine purpose.
If one takes survival as the end, then we may ask what are the means necessary to that end. On Locke's account, these turn out to be life, liberty, health and property. Since the end is set by God, on Locke's view we have a right to the means to that end. So we have rights to life, liberty, health and property. These are natural rights, that is they are rights that we have in a state of nature before the introduction of civil government, and all people have these rights equally.
If God's purpose for me on earth is my survival and that of my species, and the means to that survival are my life, health, liberty and property -- then clearly I don't want anyone to violate my rights to these things. Equally, considering other people, who are my natural equals, I should conclude that I should not violate their rights to life, liberty, health and property. This is the law of nature. It is the Golden Rule, interpreted in terms of natural rights. Thus Locke writes: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions..." (II, 6) Locke tells us that the law of nature is revealed by reason. Locke makes the point about the law that it commands what is best for us. If it did not, he says, the law would vanish for it would not be obeyed. It is in this sense, I think, that Locke means that reason reveals the law. If you reflect on what is best for yourself and others, given the goal of survival and our natural equality, you will come to this conclusion."
"I think human evolution is slowed down by the fact that we can adapt out environment to fit us rather then having to adapt to our environment"
I'm not talking about human evolution, per se. Perhaps the problem is that I have been unable to get a definition from you as to what you think IS human nature? Is it benevolence? Is it wickedness? Is it relationships to social power? Is it existential in nature? Is it deterministic? Is it created by some "God"? You have alluded that it may be assessed by looking at feelings, thoughts, and so forth. But what is it that has not changed and which you feel is esential to the understanding you were embracing when you made your original comment that it has not changed? Did you have anything specific in mind from a particular discipline or were you just saying "people will be people..."?
Without a definition from you I have simply been looking at the idea of "change" as probably reflecting at some point upon your inner idea. But I am not getting any clear picture of what you really meant.
What is Human Nature? Your comment about the environment not forcing us to adapt (not that I agree with it, but that is another issue) would suggest that you consider "human nature" to have a genetical basis? Do you consider human nature as a physical concept? |
