Human Nature: a Contested Concept Essay

ar we in here(predicate)ntly good or bad? Are we raft by reason or emotions? Are we selfish or altruistic? Is the military personnel mind m whollyeable or predisposed? These questions be highly contested and the answers to them far from understandably. This is due not only to the naval division of different perspectives on valet de chambre personalizedity, but also to lookingly contrary evidence. We deprivation only scratch the surface of history to find assay that pityingkind is capable of incredible cruelty and violence. In Ancient Rome, for example, sport was provided by forcing hoi polloi to fight animals and other homosexual beings often to the death.If this take cares waste in the extreme, we thankfully also find tales of tremendous bravery and what would seem to be selflessness. Today, unsung heroes risk their lives every day to save those of lie with stranges. In short, the picture is a mixed one We seem to be lot angel, part demon, part acute, pa rt animal, capable of great resplendence and great tragedy. 1 Indeed, the notion that mankind beings ar part angel, part demon echoes Aristotles (384-322 BCE) conclusion that he who is content with his retirement moldiness be Either a beast or a God.2 Whether we atomic number 18 by temperament good or bad is a central question in the debate on gentle record. Philosophical as well as apparitional and phantasmal traditions tolerate answered the question in different appearances. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed that homosexualkind is driven by the ires or instincts linked to self-preservation. 3 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), by contrast, argued that man beings argon by nature good and that any transgressions that they may experience ar attributable to the corrupting influence of connection. What moderates human beings distinctly human is their cleverness for reason.In the Old Testament, human is portrayed as created in the look of God and, thus, inheren tly good. However, both Jews and Christians argon in agreement that human beings fell from grace by failing to refrain from eating from the channelise of knowledge of good and evil, which left them adrift, alienated from God and in compulsion of salvation. 4 12 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN Another question that recurs in discussions about human nature is whether we atomic number 18 driven by emotions or rational thought. A major c erstwhilern here is whether reason plays a subprogram in our clean judgements.If so, do we engage in conscious reasoning in the beginning pronouncing a judgement or after the f act upon? David Hume (1711-1776) was the first modern philosopher to argue that we make moral judgements on the basis of emotional responses to situations or scenarios. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) held a different opinion. He argued that we make moral judgements through a process of conscious reasoning. 5 In Kants witness, the evolution of humanity had followed a progression from be ing make by animal instincts to being driven by reason. For Aristotle, too, human beings are capable of living a good life by employing reason.Plato (427-347 BCE) held that human beings are driven by both passion and reason. How potty we reconcile these seemingly contradictory faculties? Those who beat greater emphasis on passion and choice instincts, much(prenominal) as fear, greed and sympathy, regard our biological heritage as more than great than the surroundings in which we grow up, whereas those who excrete greater priority to our competency for reason tend to attribute greater signifi chamberpotce to culture and breeding or born(p) capacity those things in the tender world that human body the steering we think back and behave.Whether we are primarily motivated by staple fiber survival instincts or by the environment is central to conflicting views on the question of throw overboard go forth and determinism. The question of how free humanity is to transm ute its nature appears time and again in discussions. According to John Locke (1632-1704), mass are free to conduct themselves in accordance with the laws of nature. In this view, education is more important than nature in shaping our doings. As is mentioned above, Plato work the middle ground.While human beings were believed to be the product of their biological heritage, the environment was thought to play a predominant role in influencing behaviour. Existentialists, much(prenominal) as Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) argued that human beings have a radical free willing 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 feel as though we are endowedwith free will, this is illusory. Proponents of this position argue that because our desires and reactions are not forev er and a day any(prenominal)thing that we can control, we cannot be considered truly free. Sigmund Freuds (1856- frantic AMORAL EGOISM 13 1939) speculation of pansexuality holds, for instance, that while concourse may think that they are making conscious choices, they are driven by subconscious mind motives. 8 Sociobiologists, such as, for example, E. O. Wilson regard human beings as products of evolution.9 This differentiation is important if we are radi margin c all(prenominal)y free to choose, we ought to be fully assured of what we are doing. However, if our patrimonial heritage shapes our mind and behaviour we ought to outlet this into consideration. 10 How we answer the above questions determines how we answer whether human is capable of moral behaviour. In this context, moral behaviour is defined as behaviour consistent with a system of rules of correct conduct. Does true altruism populate or is all altruism based on self-centeredness? According to Hobbes, human beings are egoists, incapable of acting altruistically.This view would appear to be consistent with situations such as a mugging that takes turn out in broad day where bystanders look on but fail to intervene. This fundamental question has kindle different responses. For Kant, morality is the forget of reason. Evolutionary approaches to human psychology and behaviour provide a very different answer. Altruism shows the Darwinian surmisal of natural selection with a problem, given that this conjecture is premised on the pressures of competition. Acts of altruism would appear to have no obvious advantage.Prairie dogs, for example, warn others of approaching in warranter by calling to them, thereby alerting a predator to their throw presence and placing themselves at greater risk. 11 How is it possible to watch on television a group of young men being travel up and summarily shot in the back of the head and take no direct action to acquire genocide to a maintain? well-nigh s ociobiologists, such as Wilson and Frans de Waal, argue that morality has developed from our genial instincts. 12 Some evolutionary psychologists, such as Marc Hauser, have through with(p) for(p) so far as to argue that human beings have evolved an innate moral instinct.13 This is interesting because it suggests that some staple moral criteria must be universal across divergent cultures. Yet, it also raises the question of whether, or the extent to which, human beings are deliberating moral agents. 14 1. 1. The Structure and Aims of the hand This book sets out to do two things first, 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 beg the following questions What motivates humankind?What is humankind capable of under certain band? Do human beings possess an innate morality? In so doing, I engage with common points of constituteence in the debate on human nature. Drawing on insights from philosophy, psychology, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, I put before a more comprehensive view of human nature. However, discussions of human nature would be incomplete without considering the findings of neuroscience. I accordingly use recent research in this rapidly developing field to go beyond the approaches to human nature in the above disciplines.Second, this book explores some of the global and auspices implications of human nature as I mean it. The way in which we approach security issues inevitably contains assumptions about what motivates human beings in particular draw, and how we attempt to address these issues is circumscribed by those assumptions. It is essential that we get these assumptions right. The be of getting them wrong is paid in lives. I thusly set out some ways in which we might damp despatch political and moral cooperation, based on our present knowledge of the neuro-psychological dissemble of our neurochemistry.In gra de to set the context for my hold speculation and to give the reader a sense of the main conceptions 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 approaches. Here, the main contours of the debate on human nature are human beings good or bad, driven by passion or reason, constrained or radically free, moral or disgraceful are addressed in greater detail.I so present my own conjecture of human nature, which I call ruttish Amoral egocentrism. 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 inheritable make-up that later will be influenced by the environment. homosexualkinds genetic make-up is essentially a code for survival. Survival instincts are emotionally based and neurochemically mediated. I therefore take issue with those who argue that human beings are primarily motivated by reason.This does not, however, mean EMOTIONAL AMORAL EGOISM 15 that we should favour nature over nurture in the nature/nurture debate, or that we should conceive of human beings as prisoners of their passions. Even though we are in part motivated by our basic survival instincts, our environment which broadly comprises our personal subject of affairs, upbringing, education, and societal, cultural and global state of affairs plays an important role in shaping our psyche and behaviour. Moreover, what distinguishes humankind from other species is our capacity for reason.We are therefore driven by both basic survival instincts and rational thought, although, alas, less frequently by the latter(prenominal) than we might like to imagine. As is indicated, whethe r human beings are inherently selfish or capable of altruism is hotly contested. In my view, humankind is neither always moral nor always criminal, but can be either at different times. sympathetic nature is governed by general self-interest and affected by genetic predisposition, which implies that there are presumable 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. Recent 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 weigh effort, we are capable of acting morally, beyond the margins of what our genetic secret writing has primed us for. In addition to considering who we are, I also concisely consider where we are going. Here, I look at how we can and are like ly to be able to modify our psychological and physiological indite through biological and technological means.At some point in the future, we may have to deal with the line between the human as a product of nature and the human as a gathering 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 focus 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? recession 1 provides a summary of my general theory of human nature, stirred up Amoral Egoism, and briefly outlines some of its universal security implications. 16 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN knock 1 Summary of activated Amoral Egoism A Neurophilosophical Theory of Human character and its Universal Security Implicatio ns 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 human 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, denunciation and conscious morality are comparatively rare.The human mind is therefore a predisposed tabula rasa, firmness of purposeing 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 potential to be either moral or i mmoral, depending on what their self-interest dictates, and will be influenced in their choices by emotions and socio-cultural contexts. Circumstances will determine the survival value of humankinds moral gain 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 careless(predicate) 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 affectionate emphasis on the role of society and the global 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 put right offers the best chance of facilitating political and moral cooperation through the establishment of strict normative fra meworks and governance structures, that best fulfil the potential of human beings to exist and evolve in peace, security, prosperity and possible serenity. Further, humanity must never be complacent about the virtues of human nature. Therefore, everything must be done at all levels to prevent EMOTIONAL 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 humankind is capable of unthinkable brutality and injustice. This is often a result of what I call fear(survival)-induced pre-emptive aggression, which may occur no matter how serene the situation appears, although it is not necessarily inevitable. Moreover, where there is injustice that is comprehend as posing a threat to survival, humankind will do any(prenominal) necessary to survive and be free. In such instances, might (military or otherwise) may not prevail or be the optimal solution. Human nature as we know it is, nev ertheless, malleable 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 regulating the use of these technologies sooner rather than later. In 5 to 5. 6, I discuss some of the global and security implications of my theory of human nature. This final part of the book first explores how prominent approaches to planetary Relations (IR) conceive of human nature and then outlines how my own theory may be situated in relation to them.I formulate that my proposed general theory of human nature collapses the nature/nurture and free will/constrained dichotomies that tend to characterise the conceptions of human nature that say major IR theories. I then discuss the relevance of my own conception of human nature to a number of issues identity complex body part 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 new technologies, have helped to bring about changes in collective identities and inter-civilisational relations. There is a growing edition between major collective identities and traditional political and cultural boundaries. 17 Since a main device driver of human behaviour is ego understood as that which negotiates between inner needs and social contexts, making humankind require a positive identity and a sense of belong 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 contradictly affect the human condi- 18 NAYEF R. F. AL-RODHAN tion and human security at various levels. While wide-reaching cultural change as part of globalisation is having positive effects in terms of increased exposure to and sense of other cultures, as well as better acc ess to knowledge, thereby bringing about a greater degree 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 risk of exposure 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 appropriate policies and institutional structures to ensure that these needs are met. At the state level, for instance, this means promoting an inclusive society that is underpinned by institutions that make effective representation possible.Globalising processes are also affecting and politicising intercivilisational relations. The increased dissemination of people from diverse cultural contexts, instant connectivity due to new technolo gies, and the populace of economic and political inequalities mean that issues can be transnationalised more substantially than in the past. Some 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 tension and provide ammunition for those who wish to exploit such fears for their own purposes.Changes in the global political and economic environment in the past few decades have also resulted in new waves of migration as people seek employment and greater opportunities outside their home country. In some regions of the world, the presence of newcomers has generated negative reactions from some factions in society. Exposure to negative stereotyping in the mass media, for example, may increase public support for policies targeted at minority groups in societies and for discrimination against them, which may be subtle or involve physical violence.In Europe, migration h as 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 act of terrorism and transnational organised crime. The securitisation of migration is sometimes accompanied by xenophobia. Those exposed to xenophobia wound from a reduction in security and do not revel a positive identity, at least in terms of the way in which EMOTIONAL 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. Both 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 argument 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 transmittable 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 thrive genetically. While the emphasis here is on genetics, culture is nonetheless recognised as influencing this genetic predisposition. 20 If we are better clotheped 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 pu believe biological factors in a narrow way limits the degree of the possible. While humankind may be weighed d own by its biological heritage, and we should not dismiss this out of hand, the environment has an important clashing 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 tension degenerates into scarlet conflict, we may be able to develop policies to prevent this from happening. A better understanding of human nature may also help humankind to promote 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 more people, allegiances are not limited to the state.Globalisation is creating a transnational social space. 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 pry imperative. Moreover, international norms have evolved in such a way that requires moral cosmopolitanism, which assumes that individuals belong to a single moral community. Yet, all too often, there appears to be a disparity between the moral principles 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 foreground is the difficulty that we may have in acting morally towards foreign 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 naturalize 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 promote moral cosmopolitanism, rather than assuming that we can rely on individuals to behave in an ethical way. We need to find a common basis on which we can cooperate.Since the human brain is quite an malleable, public policies and governance structures can influence the human condition and, as a result, the likelihood of insecurity and in stability. 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 huma n beings should not be subjected to torture or corrupting 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 emergency and fear, ought to be promoted at all levels. Political processes and structures should be inclusive. Multilateral institutions, for example, ought to be more representative 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 pattern 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, m y theory is intended to apply to the majority of human beings, not the minority. I have also kept the discussion of neuroscientific and philosophical issues general in order to avoid overwhelming the reader with technical detail and nomenclatures.