Man still
bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. Why do some people fail to acknowledge the
evidence of human nature and cling tenaciously to a social constructivist theory like a monkey on a vine? There’s nothing new under the sun. Sanguine views of human progress and the
belief in attainable utopias have been around time immemorial. Still, after a century of two world wars and
numerous genocides, not to mention oppression and civil wars, you’d think we
would have done away with foolish optimism.
So we should account for such opposition to human depravity in this
post-Auschwitz, post-Hiroshima, post-911 world that we live in. One reason for this opposition has to do with a person's training or
ideology. The contrarian might be trained as
a sociologist and therefore predisposed to see social ills as a result of
social forces or faulty institutions that can be corrected. More broadly, they like the idea that humans
are blank slates, with no particular predilection for evil, or good, but can be
molded with the latest programs, strategies, or conceptual framework to create
a more caring, equitable, and peaceful society.
This scenario puts humans, at least the smart ones, comfortably in control of their fate. There’s something to be said for both
nature and nurture. It’s just that they exaggerate
the latter and neglect or underappreciate the former.
Those who oppose the view of inherent human evil
have some valid concerns, however. Cults
and dictatorial regimes have controlled people through ideologies of human
depravity. They instill guilt into their followers and subjects and foster the idea that they must look to Big Brother, to use Orwell’s
words, to save them from their selfish ways.
After all, what conclusion does Thomas Hobbes draw from his realistic
portrayal of humans left to their own devices? They need a strongman to keep them in
line, someone who can be brutal when necessary. Perhaps he would have opposed the
Iraq War precisely for this reason. Some
associate arguments of “nature” with a white patriarchy determined to keep
women and minorities “in their place.”
It’s an argument for the status quo, not for revolutionary change. These objections are legitimate, for this
position has sometimes been a tool of exploitation. However, the abuse of biological arguments doesn't take away from the fact that nature has bequeathed to us behavioral software.
The idea is to confront our inner monkey and
design a social system to foster enlightened self-interest, all the while being
vigilant against our dark impulses that resist from time to time. While we’ve been born with the instinct for
self-preservation, and males in particular are hard-wired for violence and
aggression, we can “reverse the curse” of our evolutionary heritage. The antidote lies within us: we have the
ability to empathize and cooperate. The ongoing work of primatologist Frans de Waal at Emory University has brought our attention to cooperation, empathy, and indeed morality among chimpanzees. How
we encourage these traits and overcome our equally inborn ethnocentrism and xenophobia
is not an easy task. We need to set up a system in which people have something to gain by trusting those outside their circle of blood kinship. For example, it's clear that the United States government, like any other government, will only get involved in a crisis abroad if it serves our national interests. So humanitarian groups should convince the U.S. that intervening or helping other countries serves our collective self-interest as Americans. You won't get far with grandiose calls for the "right thing to do." What we do not want to do, however, is give in to
our base instincts. The other day I
watched a movie called The Purge, a
dystopian story set in the near future.
The “new founding fathers” of the U.S. government have managed to reduce
crime and unemployment significantly by setting aside a day each year, March
22, when people have 12 hours to give full vent to their hatred, jealousy, and
violent impulses. Until 7 am the next
morning, all crime is permitted and no fire or police services are available. From sundown to sunup it’s essentially a
Hobbesian war of every man against every man. The storyline is implausible in a number of
ways, but I found the film instructive for our present topic.
The idea is to confront our inner monkey and
design a social system to foster enlightened self-interest, all the while being
vigilant against our dark impulses that resist from time to time. While we’ve been born with the instinct for
self-preservation, and males in particular are hard-wired for violence and
aggression, we can “reverse the curse” of our evolutionary heritage. The antidote lies within us: we have the
ability to empathize and cooperate. The ongoing work of primatologist Frans de Waal at Emory University has brought our attention to cooperation, empathy, and indeed morality among chimpanzees. How
we encourage these traits and overcome our equally inborn ethnocentrism and xenophobia
is not an easy task. We need to set up a system in which people have something to gain by trusting those outside their circle of blood kinship. For example, it's clear that the United States government, like any other government, will only get involved in a crisis abroad if it serves our national interests. So humanitarian groups should convince the U.S. that intervening or helping other countries serves our collective self-interest as Americans. You won't get far with grandiose calls for the "right thing to do." What we do not want to do, however, is give in to
our base instincts. The other day I
watched a movie called The Purge, a
dystopian story set in the near future.
The “new founding fathers” of the U.S. government have managed to reduce
crime and unemployment significantly by setting aside a day each year, March
22, when people have 12 hours to give full vent to their hatred, jealousy, and
violent impulses. Until 7 am the next
morning, all crime is permitted and no fire or police services are available. From sundown to sunup it’s essentially a
Hobbesian war of every man against every man. The storyline is implausible in a number of
ways, but I found the film instructive for our present topic. 
