fbpx
Wikipedia

Human nature

March 12, 2023

For other uses, see Human nature (disambiguation).

Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—that humans are said to have naturally.[1][2][3][4] The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind, or what it 'means' to be human. This usage has proven to be controversial in that there is dispute as to whether or not such an essence actually exists.

Arguments about human nature have been a central focus of philosophy for centuries and the concept continues to provoke lively philosophical debate.[5][6][7] While both concepts are distinct from one another, discussions regarding human nature are typically related to those regarding the comparative importance of genes and environment in human development (i.e., 'nature versus nurture'). Accordingly, the concept also continues to play a role in academic fields, such as the natural sciences, social sciences, history, and philosophy, in which various theorists claim to have yielded insight into human nature.[8][9][10][11] Human nature is traditionally contrasted with human attributes that vary among societies, such as those associated with specific cultures.

The concept of nature as a standard by which to make judgments is traditionally said to have begun in Greek philosophy, at least in regard to its heavy influence on Western and Middle Eastern languages and perspectives.[12] By late antiquity and medieval times, the particular approach that came to be dominant was that of Aristotle's teleology, whereby human nature was believed to exist somehow independently of individuals, causing humans to simply become what they become. This, in turn, has been understood as also demonstrating a special connection between human nature and divinity, whereby human nature is understood in terms of final and formal causes. More specifically, this perspective believes that nature itself (or a nature-creating divinity) has intentions and goals, including the goal for humanity to live naturally. Such understandings of human nature see this nature as an "idea", or "form" of a human.[13] However, the existence of this invariable and metaphysical human nature is subject of much historical debate, continuing into modern times.

Against Aristotle's notion of a fixed human nature, the relative malleability of man has been argued especially strongly in recent centuries—firstly by early modernists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his Emile, or On Education, Rousseau wrote: "We do not know what our nature permits us to be."[14] Since the early 19th century, such thinkers as Hegel, Darwin, Freud, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre, as well as structuralists and postmodernists more generally, have also sometimes argued against a fixed or innate human nature.

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has particularly changed the shape of the discussion, supporting the proposition that mankind's ancestors were not like mankind today. More recent scientific perspectives such as behaviorism, determinism, and the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychology claim to be neutral regarding human nature.[citation needed] As in much of modern science, such disciplines seek to explain with little or no recourse to metaphysical causation.[15] They can be offered to explain the origins of human nature and its underlying mechanisms, or to demonstrate capacities for change and diversity which would arguably[citation needed] violate the concept of a fixed human nature.

Classical Greek philosophy

Main article: Ancient Greek philosophy § Classical Greek philosophy

Philosophy in classical Greece is the ultimate origin of the Western conception of the nature of things.[12]

According to Aristotle, the philosophical study of human nature itself originated with Socrates, who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to study of the human things.[16] Though leaving no written works, Socrates is said to have studied the question of how a person should best live. It is clear from the works of his students, Plato and Xenophon, and also from the accounts of Aristotle (Plato's student), that Socrates was a rationalist and believed that the best life and the life most suited to human nature involved reasoning. The Socratic school was the dominant surviving influence in philosophical discussion in the Middle Ages, amongst Islamic, Christian, and Jewish philosophers.

The human soul in the works of Plato and Aristotle has a nature that is divided in a specifically human way. One part is specifically human and rational, being further divided into (1) a part which is rational on its own; and (2) a spirited part which can understand reason. Other parts of the soul are home to desires or passions similar to those found in animals. In both Aristotle and Plato's ideas, spiritedness (thumos) is distinguished from the other passions (epithūmíā).[17] The proper function of the "rational" was to rule the other parts of the soul, helped by spiritedness. By this account, using one's reason is the best way to live, and philosophers are the highest types of humans.

Aristotle

Aristotle—Plato's most famous student—made some of the most famous and influential statements about human nature. In his works, apart from using a similar scheme of a divided human soul, some clear statements about human nature are made:

  • In contrast to other animals, humans have reason or language (logos) in their soul (psyche). According to Aristotle this means that the work (ergos) of a human is the actualization (energeia) of the soul in accordance with reason.[18] Based upon this reasoning, the medieval followers of Aristotle formulated the doctrine that man is the "Rational Animal".
  • Man is a conjugal animal: An animal that is born to couple in adulthood. In doing so, man builds a household (oikos) and, in more successful cases, a clan or small village run upon patriarchal lines.[19] However, humans naturally tend to connect their villages into cities (poleis), which are more self-sufficient and complete.
  • Man is a political animal: An animal with an innate propensity to develop more complex communities (i.e. the size of a city or town), with systems of law-making and a division of labor. This type of community is different in kind from a large family, and requires the use of human reason. Cities should not be run by a patriarch, like a village.[20]
  • Man is a mimetic animal: Man loves to use his imagination, and not only to make laws and run town councils: "[W]e enjoy looking at accurate likenesses of things which are themselves painful to see, obscene beasts, for instance, and corpses.… [The] reason why we enjoy seeing likenesses is that, as we look, we learn and infer what each is, for instance, 'that is so and so.'"[21]

For Aristotle, reason is not only what is most special about humanity compared to other animals, but it is also what we were meant to achieve at our best. Much of Aristotle's description of human nature is still influential today. However, the particular teleological idea that humans are "meant" or intended to be something has become much less popular in modern times.[22]

Theory of four causes

For the Socratics, human nature, and all natures, are metaphysical concepts. Aristotle developed the standard presentation of this approach with his theory of four causes, whereby every living thing exhibits four aspects, or "causes:"

  1. matter (hyle);
  2. form (eidos);
  3. effect (kinoun); and
  4. end (telos).

For example, an oak tree is made of plant cells (matter); grows from an acorn (effect); exhibits the nature of oak trees (form); and grows into a fully mature oak tree (end). According to Aristotle, human nature is an example of a formal cause. Likewise, our 'end' is to become a fully actualized human being (including fully actualizing the mind). Aristotle suggests that the human intellect (νοῦς, noûs), while "smallest in bulk", is the most significant part of the human psyche and should be cultivated above all else.[23] The cultivation of learning and intellectual growth of the philosopher is thereby also the happiest and least painful life.

Chinese philosophy

Confucianism

 
Portrait of Mencius, a Confucian philosopher

Human nature is a central question in Chinese philosophy.[24] From the Song dynasty, the theory of potential or innate goodness of human beings became dominant in Confucianism.[25]

Mencius

Mencius argues that human nature is good,[26][24][27] understanding human nature as the innate tendency to an ideal state that's expected to be formed under the right conditions.[28] Therefore, humans have the capacity to be good, even though they are not all good.[28]

According to Mencian theory, human nature contains four beginnings (端; duan) of morality:[29]

  1. a sense of compassion that develops into benevolence (仁; ren);
  2. a sense of shame and disdain that develops into righteousness (義; yi);
  3. a sense of respect and courtesy that develops into propriety (禮; li); and
  4. a sense of right and wrong that develops into wisdom (智; zhi).[27][29]

The beginnings of morality are characterized by both affective motivations and intuitive judgments, such as what's right and wrong, deferential, respectful, or disdainful.[29]

In Mencius' view, goodness is the result of the development of innate tendencies toward the virtues of benevolence, righteousness, wisdom, and propriety.[27] The tendencies are manifested in moral emotions for every human being.[27] Reflection (思; si) upon the manifestations of the four beginnings leads to the development of virtues.[27] It brings recognition that virtue takes precedence over satisfaction, but a lack of reflection inhibits moral development.[29] In other words, humans have a constitution comprising emotional predispositions that direct them to goodness.[27]

Mencius also addresses the question why the capacity for evil is not grounded in human nature.[27] If an individual becomes bad, it is not the result of his or her constitution, as their constitution contains the emotional predispositions that direct to goodness, but a matter of injuring or not fully developing his or her constitution in the appropriate direction.[27] He recognizes desires of the senses as natural predispositions distinct from the four beginnings.[29] People can be misled and led astray by their desires if they do not engage their ethical motivations.[27] He therefore places responsibility on people to reflect on the manifestations of the four beginnings.[29] Herein, it is not the function of ears and eyes but the function of the heart to reflect, as sensory organs are associated with sensual desires but the heart is the seat of feeling and thinking.[30] Mencius considers core virtues—benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom—as internal qualities that humans originally possess, so people can not attain full satisfaction by solely pursuits of self-interest due to their innate morality.[31] Wong (2018) underscores that Mencius' characterization of human nature as good means that "it contains predispositions to feel and act in morally appropriate ways and to make intuitive normative judgments that can with the right nurturing conditions give human beings guidance as to the proper emphasis to be given to the desires of the senses."[29]

Mencius sees ritual (i.e., the standard for how humans should treat and interact with each other) as an outward expression of the inherent moral sense in human nature.[31]

Xunzi

Mencius' view of ritual is in contrast to Xunzi, who does not view moral sense as an innate part of human nature.[32] Rather, a moral sense is acquired through learning, in which one engages in and reflects upon a set of ritual practices.[32] Xunzi's claim that human nature is bad, according to Ivanhoe (1994), means that humans do not have a conception of morality and therefore must acquire it through learning, lest destructive and alienating competition inevitably arises from human desire.[32]

Xunzi understands human nature as the basic faculties, capacities, and desires that people have from birth.[28] He argues that human nature is evil and that any goodness is the result of human activity.[24][33] It is human nature to seek profit, because humans desire for sensory satisfaction.[33] Xunzi states that "Now the nature of man is evil. It must depend on teachers and laws to become correct and achieve propriety and righteousness and then it becomes disciplined."[24] He underscores that goodness comes from the traits and habits acquired through conscious actions, which he calls artifice (偽; wei).[34][28] Therefore, morality is seen as a human artifice but not as a part of human nature.[35]

Legalism

 
Statue of Shang Yang, a prominent Legalist scholar and statesman

Human nature is one of the major pillars of Legalism in China.[36] However, Legalists do not concern themselves with whether human goodness or badness is inborn, and whether human beings possess the fundamental qualities associated with that nature.[36]

Legalists see the overwhelming majority of human beings as selfish in nature.[36] They hold the view that human nature is evil, in which individuals are driven by selfishness.[37] Therefore, people are not expected to always behave morally.[36] For instance, due to the corrupt nature of humans, Legalists did not trust that officials would carry out their duties in a fair and impartial manner.[38] There is a perpetual political struggle, characterized by conflict among contending human actors and interests, where individuals are easily tempted due to their selfish nature at the expense of others.[37]

According to Legalism, selfishness in human nature can not be eliminated or altered by education or self-cultivation.[36][39] It dismisses the possibility that people can overcome their selfishness and considers the possibility that people can be driven by moral commitment to be exceptionally rare.[36] Legalists do not see the individual morality of both the rulers or the ruled as an important concern in a political system.[36] Instead, Legalist thinkers such as Han Fei emphasize clear and impersonal norms and standards (such as laws, regulations, and rules) as the basis to maintain order.[36]

As human nature has an unchanging selfish but satiable core, Han Fei argues that competition for external goods during times of scarcity produces disorder, while times of abundance simply mean that people do not fall back into chaos and conflict but not that they are necessarily nice.[39] Additionally, Han Fei argues that people are all motivated by their unchanging selfish core to want whatever advantage they can gain from whomever they can gain such advantage, which especially comes to expression in situations where people can act with impunity.[39]

Legalists posit that human selfishness can be an asset rather than a threat to a state.[36] It is axiomatic in Legalism that the government can not be staffed by upright and trustworthy men of service, because every member of the elite—like any member of society—will pursue their own interests and thus must be employed for their interests.[36] Herein, individuals must be allowed to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in a manner that benefits rather than contradicts the needs of a state.[36] Therefore, a political system that presupposes this human selfishness is the only viable system.[36] In contrast, a political system based on trust and respect (rather than impersonal norms and standards) brings great concern with regard to an ongoing and irresolvable power struggle.[36] Rather, checks and controls must be in place to limit the subversion of the system by its actors (such as ministers and other officials).[36] Legalists view the usage of reward and punishment as effective political controls, as it is in human nature to have likes and dislikes.[37] For instance, according to the Legalist statesman Shang Yang, it is crucial to investigate the disposition of people in terms of rewards and penalties when a law is established.[36] He explains that a populace can not be driven to pursuits of agriculture or warfare if people consider these to be bitter or dangerous on the basis of calculations about their possible benefits, but people can be directed toward these pursuits through the application of positive and negative incentives.[36] As an implication of the selfish core in human nature, Han Fei remarks that "Those who act as ministers fear the penalties and hope to profit by the rewards."[39]

In Han Fei's view, the only realistic option is a political system that produces equivalents of junzi (君子, who are virtuous exemplars in Confucianism) but not junzi.[39] This does not mean, however, that Han Fei makes a distinction between seeming and being good, as he does not entertain the idea that humans are good.[39] Rather, as human nature is constituted by self-interest, he argues that humans can be shaped behaviorally to yield social order if it is in the individual's own self-interest to abide by the norms (i.e., different interests are aligned to each other and the social good), which is most efficiently ensured if the norms are publicly and impartially enforced.[39]

Christian theology

Main article: Christian theology

In Christian theology, there are two ways of "conceiving human nature:" The first is "spiritual, Biblical, and theistic"; and the second is "natural, cosmical, and anti-theistic".[40]: 6  The focus in this section is on the former. As William James put it in his study of human nature from a religious perspective, "religion" has a "department of human nature".[41]

Various views of human nature have been held by theologians. However, there are some "basic assertions" in all "biblical anthropology:"[42]

  1. "Humankind has its origin in God, its creator."
  2. "Humans bear the 'image of God'."
  3. Humans are "to rule the rest of creation".

The Bible contains no single "doctrine of human nature". Rather, it provides material for more philosophical descriptions of human nature.[43] For example, Creation as found in the Book of Genesis provides a theory on human nature.[44]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, under the chapter "Dignity of the human person", provides an article about man as image of God, vocation to beatitude, freedom, human acts, passions, moral conscience, virtues, and sin.[45]

Created human nature

As originally created, the Bible describes "two elements" in human nature: "the body and the breath or spirit of life breathed into it by God". By this was created a "living soul", meaning a "living person".[46] According to Genesis 1:27, this living person was made in the "image of God".[47] From the biblical perspective, "to be human is to bear the image of God."[48]: 18 

"Two main modes of conceiving human nature—the one of which is spiritual, Biblical, and theistic," and the other "natural, cosmical, and anti-theistic."

—John Tulloch[40]

Genesis does not elaborate the meaning of "the image of God", but scholars find suggestions. One is that being created in the image of God distinguishes human nature from that of the beasts.[49] Another is that as God is "able to make decisions and rule" so humans made in God's image are "able to make decisions and rule". A third is that mankind possesses an inherent ability "to set goals" and move toward them.[48]: 5, 14  That God denoted creation as "good" suggests that Adam was "created in the image of God, in righteousness".[50]

Adam was created with ability to make "right choices", but also with the ability to choose sin, by which he fell from righteousness into a state of "sin and depravity".[48]: 231  Thus, according to the Bible, "humankind is not as God created it."[51]

Fallen human nature

Main article: Fall of man

By Adam's fall into sin, "human nature" became "corrupt", although it retains the image of God. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that "sin is universal."[48]: 17, 141  For example, Psalm 51:5 reads: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me."[52] Jesus taught that everyone is a "sinner naturally" because it is mankind's "nature and disposition to sin".[40]: 124–5  Paul, in Romans 7:18, speaks of his "sinful nature".[53]

Such a "recognition that there is something wrong with the moral nature of man is found in all religions."[48]: 141  Augustine of Hippo coined a term for the assessment that all humans are born sinful: original sin.[54] Original sin is "the tendency to sin innate in all human beings".[55] The doctrine of original sin is held by the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant denominations, but rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which holds the similar doctrine of ancestral fault.

"The corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature": to "reason and will" as well as to "appetites and impulses". This condition is sometimes called "total depravity".[56] Total depravity does not mean that humanity is as "thoroughly depraved" as it could become.[57] Commenting on Romans 2:14, John Calvin writes that all people have "some notions of justice and rectitude ... which are implanted by nature" all people.[58]

Adam embodied the "whole of human nature" so when Adam sinned "all of human nature sinned."[59] The Old Testament does not explicitly link the "corruption of human nature" to Adam's sin. However, the "universality of sin" implies a link to Adam. In the New Testament, Paul concurs with the "universality of sin". He also makes explicit what the Old Testament implied: the link between humanity's "sinful nature" and Adam's sin[60] In Romans 5:19, Paul writes, "through [Adam's] disobedience humanity became sinful."[61] Paul also applied humanity's sinful nature to himself: "there is nothing good in my sinful nature."[62][63]

The theological "doctrine of original sin" as an inherent element of human nature is not based only on the Bible. It is in part a "generalization from obvious facts" open to empirical observation.[64]

Empirical view

A number of experts on human nature have described the manifestations of original (i.e., the innate tendency to) sin as empirical facts.

  • Biologist Richard Dawkins, in his The Selfish Gene, states that "a predominant quality" in a successful surviving gene is "ruthless selfishness". Furthermore, "this gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior."[65]
  • Child psychologist Burton L. White finds a "selfish" trait in children from birth, a trait that expresses itself in actions that are "blatantly selfish".[66][67]
  • Sociologist William Graham Sumner finds it a fact that "everywhere one meets "fraud, corruption, ignorance, selfishness, and all the other vices of human nature".[68] He enumerates "the vices and passions of human nature" as "cupidity, lust, vindictiveness, ambition, and vanity". Sumner finds such human nature to be universal: in all people, in all places, and in all stations in society.[69]
  • Psychiatrist Thomas Anthony Harris, on the basis of his "data at hand", observes "sin, or badness, or evil, or 'human nature', whatever we call the flaw in our species, is apparent in every person." Harris calls this condition "intrinsic badness" or "original sin".[70]

Empirical discussion questioning the genetic exclusivity of such an intrinsic badness proposition is presented by researchers Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson. In their book, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior, they propose a theory of multilevel group selection in support of an inherent genetic "altruism" in opposition to the original sin exclusivity for human nature.[71]

20th century Liberal Theology

Liberal theologians in the early 20th century described human nature as "basically good", needing only "proper training and education". But the above examples document the return to a "more realistic view" of human nature "as basically sinful and self-centered". Human nature needs "to be regenerated ... to be able to live the unselfish life".[72]

Regenerated human nature

Main article: Regeneration (theology)

According to the Bible, "Adam's disobedience corrupted human nature" but God mercifully "regenerates".[73] "Regeneration is a radical change" that involves a "renewal of our [human] nature".[74] Thus, to counter original sin, Christianity purposes "a complete transformation of individuals" by Christ.[75]

The goal of Christ's coming is that fallen humanity might be "conformed to or transformed into the image of Christ who is the perfect image of God", as in 2 Corinthians 4:4.[76] The New Testament makes clear the "universal need" for regeneration.[77] A sampling of biblical portrayals of regenerating human nature and the behavioral results follow.

  • being "transformed by the renewing of your minds" (Romans 12:2)[78]
  • being transformed from one's "old self" (or "old man") into a "new self" (or "new man") (Colossians 3:9-10)[79]
  • being transformed from people who "hate others" and "are hard to get along with" and who are "jealous, angry, and selfish" to people who are "loving, happy, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlled" (Galatians 5:20-23)[80]
  • being transformed from looking "to your own interests" to looking "to the interests of others" (Philippians 2:4)[81]

Early modern philosophy

One of the defining changes that occurred at the end of the Middle Ages was the end of the dominance of Aristotelian philosophy, and its replacement by a new approach to the study of nature, including human nature.[citation needed] In this approach, all attempts at conjecture about formal and final causes were rejected as useless speculation.[citation needed] Also, the term "law of nature" now applied to any regular and predictable pattern in nature, not literally a law made by a divine lawmaker, and, in the same way, "human nature" became not a special metaphysical cause, but simply whatever can be said to be typical tendencies of humans.[citation needed]

Although this new realism applied to the study of human life from the beginning—for example, in Machiavelli's works—the definitive argument for the final rejection of Aristotle was associated especially with Francis Bacon. Bacon sometimes wrote as if he accepted the traditional four causes ("It is a correct position that "true knowledge is knowledge by causes." And causes again are not improperly distributed into four kinds: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final") but he adapted these terms and rejected one of the three:

But of these the final cause rather corrupts than advances the sciences, except such as have to do with human action. The discovery of the formal is despaired of. The efficient and the material (as they are investigated and received, that is, as remote causes, without reference to the latent process leading to the form) are but slight and superficial, and contribute little, if anything, to true and active science.[82]

This line of thinking continued with René Descartes, whose new approach returned philosophy or science to its pre-Socratic focus upon non-human things. Thomas Hobbes, then Giambattista Vico, and David Hume all claimed to be the first to properly use a modern Baconian scientific approach to human things.

Hobbes famously followed Descartes in describing humanity as matter in motion, just like machines. He also very influentially described man's natural state (without science and artifice) as one where life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".[83] Following him, John Locke's philosophy of empiricism also saw human nature as a tabula rasa. In this view, the mind is at birth a "blank slate" without rules, so data are added, and rules for processing them are formed solely by our sensory experiences.[84]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau pushed the approach of Hobbes to an extreme and criticized it at the same time. He was a contemporary and acquaintance of Hume, writing before the French Revolution and long before Darwin and Freud. He shocked Western civilization with his Second Discourse by proposing that humans had once been solitary animals, without reason or language or communities, and had developed these things due to accidents of pre-history. (This proposal was also less famously made by Giambattista Vico.) In other words, Rousseau argued that human nature was not only not fixed, but not even approximately fixed compared to what had been assumed before him. Humans are political, and rational, and have language now, but originally they had none of these things.[85] This in turn implied that living under the management of human reason might not be a happy way to live at all, and perhaps there is no ideal way to live. Rousseau is also unusual in the extent to which he took the approach of Hobbes, asserting that primitive humans were not even naturally social. A civilized human is therefore not only imbalanced and unhappy because of the mismatch between civilized life and human nature, but unlike Hobbes, Rousseau also became well known for the suggestion that primitive humans had been happier, "noble savages".[86]

Rousseau's conception of human nature has been seen as the origin of many intellectual and political developments of the 19th and 20th centuries.[87] He was an important influence upon Kant, Hegel, and Marx, and the development of German idealism, historicism, and romanticism.

What human nature did entail, according to Rousseau and the other modernists of the 17th and 18th centuries, were animal-like passions that led humanity to develop language and reasoning, and more complex communities (or communities of any kind, according to Rousseau).

In contrast to Rousseau, David Hume was a critic of the oversimplifying and systematic approach of Hobbes, Rousseau, and some others whereby, for example, all human nature is assumed to be driven by variations of selfishness. Influenced by Hutcheson and Shaftesbury, he argued against oversimplification. On the one hand, he accepted that, for many political and economic subjects, people could be assumed to be driven by such simple selfishness, and he also wrote of some of the more social aspects of "human nature" as something which could be destroyed, for example if people did not associate in just societies. On the other hand, he rejected what he called the "paradox of the sceptics", saying that no politician could have invented words like "'honourable' and 'shameful,' 'lovely' and 'odious,' 'noble' and 'despicable'", unless there was not some natural "original constitution of the mind".[88]

Hume—like Rousseau—was controversial in his own time for his modernist approach, following the example of Bacon and Hobbes, of avoiding consideration of metaphysical explanations for any type of cause and effect. He was accused of being an atheist. He wrote:

We needn't push our researches so far as to ask "Why do we have humanity, i.e. a fellow-feeling with others?" It's enough that we experience this as a force in human nature. Our examination of causes must stop somewhere.[88]

After Rousseau and Hume, the nature of philosophy and science changed, branching into different disciplines and approaches, and the study of human nature changed accordingly. Rousseau's proposal that human nature is malleable became a major influence upon international revolutionary movements of various kinds, while Hume's approach has been more typical in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United States.[citation needed]

According to Edouard Machery, the concept of human nature is an outgrowth of folk biology and in particular, the concept of folk essentialism - the tendency of ordinary people to ascribe essences to kinds. Machery argues that while the idea that humans have an "essence" is a very old idea, the idea that all humans have a unified human nature is relatively modern; for a long time, people thought of humans as "us versus them" and thus did not think of human beings as a unified kind.[89]

Contemporary philosophy

The concept of human nature is a source of ongoing debate in contemporary philosophy, specifically within philosophy of biology, a subfield of the philosophy of science. Prominent critics of the concept – David L. Hull,[90] Michael Ghiselin,[91] and David Buller;[92] see also[5][6][7] – argue that human nature is incompatible with modern evolutionary biology. Conversely, defenders of the concept argue that when defined in certain ways, human nature is both scientifically respectable and meaningful.[5][6][7][93][94][95] Therefore, the value and usefulness of the concept depends essentially on how one construes it. This section summarizes the prominent construals of human nature and outlines the key arguments from philosophers on both sides of the debate.

Criticism of the concept of human nature (Hull)

Philosopher of science David L. Hull has influentially argued that there is no such thing as human nature. Hull's criticism is raised against philosophers who conceive human nature as a set of intrinsic phenotypic traits (or characters) that are universal among humans, unique to humans, and definitive of what it is to be a member of the biological species Homo sapiens. In particular, Hull argues that such "essential sameness of human beings" is "temporary, contingent and relatively rare" in biology.[90] He argues that variation, insofar as it is the result of evolution, is an essential feature of all biological species. Moreover, the type of variation which characterizes a certain species in a certain historical moment is "to a large extent accidental"[90] He writes:[90]: 3 

Periodically a biological species might be characterized by one or more characters which are both universally distributed among and limited to the organisms belonging to that species, but such states of affairs are temporary, contingent and relatively rare.

Hull reasons that properties universally shared by all members of a certain species are usually also possessed by members of other species, whereas properties exclusively possessed by the members of a certain species are rarely possessed by all members of that species. For these reasons, Hull observes that, in contemporary evolutionary taxonomy, belonging to a particular species does not depend on the possession of any specific intrinsic properties. Rather, it depends on standing in the right kind of relations (relations of genealogy or interbreeding, depending on the precise species concept being used) to other members of the species. Consequently, there can be no intrinsic properties that define what it is to be a member of the species Homo sapiens. Individual organisms, including humans, are part of a species by virtue of their relations with other members of the same species, not shared intrinsic properties.

According to Hull, the moral significance of his argument lies in its impact on the biologically legitimate basis for the concept of "human rights". While it has long been argued that there is a sound basis for "human rights" in the idea that all human beings are essentially the same, should Hull's criticism work, such a basis – at least on a biological level – would disappear. Nevertheless, Hull does not perceive this to be a fundamental for human rights, because people can choose to continue respecting human rights even without sharing the same human nature.[90]

Defences of the concept of human nature

Several contemporary philosophers have attempted to defend the notion of human nature against charges that it is incompatible with modern evolutionary biology by proposing alternative interpretations. They claim that the concept of human nature continues to bear relevance in the fields of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Many have proposed non-essentialist notions. Others have argued that, even if natural selection has shown that any attempt to base species membership on "intrinsic essential properties" is untenable, essences can still be "relational" – this would be consistent with the interbreeding, ecological, and phylogenetic species concepts, which are accepted by modern evolutionary biology.[96] These attempts aim to make natural selection compatible with a certain conception of human nature which is stable across time.

"Nomological" account (Machery)

Philosopher of science Edouard Machery has proposed that the above criticisms only apply to a specific definition (or "notion") of human nature, and not to "human nature in general".[94] He distinguishes between two different notions:

  • An essentialist notion of human nature - "Human nature is the set of properties that are separately necessary and jointly sufficient for being a human." These properties are also usually considered as distinctive of human beings. They are also intrinsic to humans and inherent to their essence.[94]
  • A nomological notion of human nature - "Human nature is the set of properties that humans tend to possess as a result of the evolution of their species."[94]

Machery clarifies that, to count as being "a result of evolution", a property must have an ultimate explanation in Ernst Mayr's sense. It must be possible to explain the trait as the product of evolutionary processes. Importantly, properties can count as part of human nature in the nomological sense even if they are not universal among humans and not unique to humans. In other words, nomological properties need not be necessary nor sufficient for being human. Instead, it is enough that these properties are shared by most humans, as a result of the evolution of their species – they "need to be typical".[97] Therefore, human nature in the nomological sense does not define what it is to be a member of the species Homo sapiens. Examples of properties that count as parts of human nature on the nomological definition include: being bipedal, having the capacity to speak, having a tendency towards biparental investment in children, having fear reactions to unexpected noises.[94] Finally, since they are the product of evolution, properties belonging to the nomological notion of human nature are not fixed, but they can change over time.[97]

Machery agrees with biologists and others philosophers of biology that the essentialist notion of human nature is incompatible with modern evolutionary biology: we cannot explain membership in the human species by means of a definition or a set of properties. However, he maintains that this does not mean humans have no nature, because we can accept the nomological notion which is not a definitional notion. Therefore, we should think of human nature as the many properties humans have in common as a result of evolution.[94]

Machery argues that notions of human nature can help explain why that, while cultures are very diverse, there are also many constants across cultures. For Machery, most forms of cultural diversity are in fact diversity on a common theme; for example, Machery observes that the concept of a kinship system is common across cultures but the exact form it takes and the specifics vary between cultures.[98]

Problems with the nomological account

Machery also highlights potential drawbacks of the nomological account.[94] One is that the nomological notion is a watered-down notion that cannot perform many of the roles that the concept of human nature is expected to perform in science and philosophy. The properties endowed upon humans by the nomological account do not distinguish humans from other animals or define what it is to be human. Machery pre-empts this objection by claiming that the nomological concept of human nature still fulfils many roles. He highlights the importance of a conception which picks out what humans share in common which can be used to make scientific, psychological generalizations about human-beings.[97] One advantage of such a conception is that it gives an idea of the traits displayed by the majority of human beings which can be explained in evolutionary terms.

Another potential drawback is that the nomological account of human nature threatens to lead to the absurd conclusion that all properties of humans are parts of human nature. According to the nomological account, a trait is only part of human nature if it is a result of evolution. However, there is a sense in which all human traits are results of evolution. For example, the belief that water is wet is shared by all humans. However, this belief is only possible because we have, for example, evolved a sense of touch. It is difficult to separate traits which are the result of evolution and those which are not. Machery claims the distinction between proximate and ultimate explanation can do the work here: only some human traits can be given an ultimate explanation, he argues.

According to the philosopher Richard Samuels[95] the account of human nature is expected to fulfill the five following roles:

  • an organizing function that demarks a territory of scientific inquiry
  • a descriptive function that is traditionally understood as specifying properties that are universal across and unique to human being
  • a causal explanatory function that offers causal explanation for occurring human behaviours and features
  • a taxonomic function that specifies possessing human nature as a necessary and sufficient criterion for belonging to the human species
  • Invariances that assume the understanding that human nature is to some degree fixed, invariable or at least hard to change and stable across time.

Samuels objects that Machery's nomological account fails to deliver on the causal explanatory function, because it claims that superficial and co-varying properties are the essence of human nature. Thus, human nature cannot be the underlying cause of these properties and accordingly cannot fulfill its causal explanatory role.

Philosopher Grant Ramsey also rejects Machery's nomological account. For him, defining human nature with respect to only universal traits fails to capture many important human characteristics.[93] Ramsey quotes the anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who claims that "the notion that unless a cultural phenomenon is empirically universal it cannot reflect anything about the nature of man is about as logical as the notion that because sickle-cell anemia is, fortunately, not universal, it cannot tell us anything about human genetic processes. It is not whether phenomena are empirically common that is critical in science...but whether they can be made to reveal the enduring natural processes that underly them."[99] Following Geertz, Ramsey holds that the study of human nature should not rely exclusively on universal or near-universal traits. There are many idiosyncratic and particular traits of scientific interest. Machery's account of human nature cannot give an account to such differences between men and women as the nomological account only picks out the common features within a species. In this light, the female menstrual cycle which is a biologically an essential and useful feature cannot be included in a nomological account of human nature.[93]

Ramsey[93] also objects that Machery uncritically adopts the innate-acquired dichotomy, distinguishing between human properties due to enculturation and those due to evolution. Ramsey objects that human properties do not just fall in one of the two categories, writing that "any organismic property is going to be due to both heritable features of the organism as well as the particular environmental features the organism happens to encounter during its life."[93]

"Causal essentialist" account (Samuels)

Richard Samuels, in an article titled "Science and Human Nature", proposes a causal essentialist view that "human nature should be identified with a suite of mechanisms, processes, and structures that causally explain many of the more superficial properties and regularities reliably associated with humanity."[95] This view is "causal" because the mechanisms causally explain the superficial properties reliably associated with humanity by referencing the underlying causal structures the properties belong to. For example, it is true that the belief that water is wet is shared by all humans yet it is not in itself a significant aspect of human nature. Instead, the psychological process that lead us to assign the word "wetness" to water is a universal trait shared by all human beings. In this respect, the superficial belief that water is wet reveals an important causal psychological process which is widely shared by most human beings. The explanation is also "essentialist" because there is a core set of empirically discoverable cognitive mechanism that count as part of the human nature. According to Samuels, his view avoids the standard biological objections to human nature essentialism.

Samuels argues that the theoretical roles of human nature includes: organizing role, descriptive functions, causal explanatory functions, taxonomic functions, and invariances.

In comparison with traditional essentialist view, the "causal essentialist" view does not accomplish the taxonomic role of human nature (the role of defining what it is to be human). He claims however, that no conception could achieve this, as the fulfillment of the role would not survive evolutionary biologists’ objections (articulated above by in "Criticisms of the concept of human nature"). In comparison with Machery's nomological conception, Samuels wants to restore the causal-explanatory function of human nature. He defines the essence of human nature as causal mechanisms and not as surface-level properties. For instance, on this view, linguistic behaviour is not part of human nature, but the cognitive mechanisms underpinning linguistic behaviour might count as part of human nature.

"Life-history trait cluster" account (Ramsey)

Grant Ramsey proposes an alternative account of human nature, which he names the "life-history trait cluster" account.[93] This view stems from the recognition that the combination of a specific genetic constitution with a specific environment is not sufficient to determine how a life will go, i.e., whether one is rich, poor, dies old, dies young, etc. Many ‘life histories’ are possible for a given individual, each populated by a great number of traits. Ramsey defines his conception of human nature in reference to the “pattern of trait clusters within the totality of extant possible life-histories”.[93] In other words, there are certain life histories, i.e., possible routes one's life can take, for example: being rich, being a PhD student, or getting ill. Ramsey underlines the patterns behind these possible routes by delving into the causes of these life histories. For example, one can make the following claim: “Humans sweat when they get exhausted" or one can also propose neurological claims such as “Humans secrete Adrenaline when they are in flight-fight mode.” This approach enables Ramsey to go beyond the superficial appearances and understand the similarities/differences between individuals in a deeper level which refers to the causal mechanisms (processes, structures and constraints etc.) which lie beneath them. Once we list all the possible life-histories of an individual, we can find these causal patterns and add them together to form the basis of individual nature.

Ramsey's next argumentative manoeuvre is to point out that traits are not randomly scattered across potential life histories; there are patterns. “These patterns” he states “provide the basis for the notion of individual and human nature”.[93]: 987  While one's ‘individual nature’ consists of the pattern of trait clusters distributed across that individual's set of possible life histories, Human Nature, Ramsey defines as “the pattern of trait clusters within the totality of extant human possible life histories”.[93]: 987  Thus, if we were to combine all possible life histories of all individuals in existence we would have access to the trait distribution patterns that constitute human nature.

Trait patterns, on Ramsey's account, can be captured in the form of conditional statements, such as "if female, you develop ovaries" or "if male, you develop testes." These statements will not be true of all humans. Ramsey contends that these statements capture part of human nature if they have a good balance of pervasiveness (many people satisfy the antecedent of the conditional statement), and robustness (many people who satisfy the antecedent go on to satisfy the consequent).

Human nature and human enhancement

Main articles: Bioconservatism and Transhumanism

The contemporary debate between so-called “bioconservatives” and “transhumanists” is directly related to the concept of human nature: transhumanists argue that "current human nature is improvable through the use of applied science and other rational methods."[100] Bioconservatives believe that the costs outweigh the benefits: in particular, they present their position as a defense of human nature which, according to them, is threatened by human enhancement technologies. Although this debate is mainly of an ethical kind, it is deeply rooted in the different interpretations of human nature, human freedom, and human dignity (which, according to bioconservatives, is specific to human beings, while transhumanists think that it can be possessed also by posthumans). As explained by Allen Buchanan,[101] the literature against human enhancement is characterized by two main concerns: that "enhancement may alter or destroy human nature" and that "if enhancement alters or destroys human nature, this will undercut our ability to ascertain the good," as "the good is determined by our nature."[101]

Bioconservatives include Jürgen Habermas,[102] Leon Kass,[103] Francis Fukuyama,[104] and Bill McKibben.[100] Some of the reasons why they oppose (certain forms of) human enhancement technology are to be found in the worry that such technology would be “dehumanizing” (as they would undermine the human dignity intrinsically built in our human nature). For instance, they fear that becoming “posthumans” could pose a threat to “ordinary” humans[105] or be harmful to posthumans themselves.[106][100]

Jürgen Habermas makes the argument against the specific case of genetic modification of unborn children by their parents, referred to as “eugenic programming” by Habermas. His argument is two-folded: The most immediate threat is on the “ethical freedom” of programmed individuals, and the subsequent threat is on the viability of liberal democracy. Reasoning of the former can be formulated as the following: Genetic programming of desirable traits, capabilities and dispositions puts restrictions on a person's freedom to choose a life of his own, to be the sole author of his existence. A genetically-programmed child may feel alienated from his identity, which is now irreversibly co-written by human agents other than himself. This feeling of alienation, resulted from“contingency of a life's beginning that is not at [one's] disposal,” makes it difficult for genetically-modified persons to perceive themselves as moral agents who can make ethical judgement freely and independently - that is, without any substantial or definitive interference from another agent. Habermas proposes a second threat - the undermining power of genetic programming on the viability of democracy. The basis of liberal democracy, Habermas rightfully claims, is the symmetrical and independent mutual recognition among free, equal and autonomous persons. Genetic programming jeopardizes this condition by irreversibly subjecting children to permanent dependence on their parents, thus depriving them of their perceived ability to be full citizens of the legal community. This fundamental modification to human relationship erodes the foundation of liberal democracy and puts its viability in danger.[107]

The most famous proponent of transhumanism, on the other hand, is Oxford Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom. According to Bostrom, "human enhancement technologies should be made widely available,"[100] as they would offer enormous potential for improving the lives of human beings, without "dehumanizing" them: for instance, improving their intellectual and physical capacities, or protecting them from suffering, illnesses, aging, and physical and cognitive shortcomings.[100] In response to bioconservatives, transhumanists argue that expanding a person's "capability set" would increase her freedom of choice, rather than reducing it.[100]

Allen Buchanan has questioned the relevance of the concept of human nature to this debate. In "Human Nature and Enhancement", he argued that good but also bad characteristics are part of human nature, and that changing the "bad" ones does not necessarily imply that the "good" ones will be affected. Moreover, Buchanan argued that the way we evaluate the good is independent of human nature: in fact, we can "make coherent judgements about the defective aspects of human nature, and if those defects were readied this need not affect our ability to judge what is good".[101] Buchanan's conclusion is that the debate on enhancement of human beings would be more fruitful if it was conducted without appealing to the concept of human nature.[101]

Tim Lewens presented a similar position: since the only notions of human nature which are compatible with biology offer "no ethical guidance in debates over enhancement", we should set the concept of human nature aside when debating about enhancement. On the other hand, "folk", neo-Aristotelian conceptions of human nature seem to have normative implications, but they have no basis in scientific research.[108] Grant Ramsey replied to these claims, arguing that his "life-history trait cluster" account allows the concept of human nature "to inform questions of human enhancement".[109]

Appeals to nature often fall foul of the naturalistic fallacy, whereby certain capacities or traits are considered morally 'good' in virtue of their naturalness. The fallacy was initially introduced by G. E. Moore in 1903, who challenged philosopher's attempts to define good reductively, in terms of natural properties (such as desirable). Reliance on 'the natural' as a justification for resisting enhancement is criticised on several grounds by transhumanists, against the bioconservative motivation to preserve or protect 'human nature'.

For example, Nick Bostrom asserts "had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder"[110] thus not worthy of unqualified protection. Similarly, Arthur Caplan opposes naturalistic objections to life extension enhancements, by claiming that:[111]

The explanation of why ageing occurs has many of the attributes of a stochastic or chance phenomenon. And this makes ageing unnatural and in no way an intrinsic part of human nature. As such, there is no reason why it is intrinsically wrong to try to reverse or cure ageing.

Scientific understanding

See also: Evolutionary psychology and Evolution of the brain § Evolution of the human brain

Science writer and journalist Matt Ridley argued that understanding human nature, and its evolution over time, requires "understanding how human sexuality evolved."[112]

Instinctual behaviour

See also: Instinct § In humans

Instinctual behaviour, an inherent inclination towards a particular complex behaviour, has been observed in humans. Emotions such as fear are part of human nature (see Fear § Innate fear for example). However they are also known to have been malleable and not fixed (see neuroplasticity and Fear § Inability to experience fear).

Congenital fear of snakes and spiders was found in six-month-old babies.[113] Infant cry is a manifestation of instinct. The infant cannot otherwise protect itself for survival during its long period of maturation. The maternal instinct, manifest particularly in response to the infant cry, has long been respected as one of the most powerful. Its mechanism has been partly elucidated by observations with functional MRI of the mother’s brain.[114]

The herd instinct is found in human children and chimpanzee cubs, but is apparently absent in young orangutans.[115]

Squeamishness and disgust in humans is an instinct developed during evolution to protect the body and avoid infection by various diseases.[116]

Hormones can affect instinctual behaviour.

Hormones

Testosterone

Testosterone (main male sex hormone) primes several instincts, especially sexuality; also dominance, manifest in self-affirmation, the urge to win over rivals (see competitiveness), to dominate a hierarchy (see dominance hierarchy), and to respond to violent signals in men (see aggression), with weakening of empathy.[117] In men, a decrease in testosterone level after the birth of a child in the family was found, so that the father’s energies are more directed to nurturing, protecting and caring for the child.[118][119] Unduly high levels of this hormone are often associated in a person with aggressiveness, illegal behavior, violence against others, such phenomena as banditry, etc.[citation needed] This is confirmed by studies conducted in prisons.[120][121] The amount of testosterone in men may increase dramatically in response to any competition.[122] In men, the level of testosterone varies depending on whether it is susceptible to the smell of an ovulating or non-ovulatory woman (see menstrual cycle). Men exposed to the odors of ovulating women maintained a stable level of testosterone, which was higher than the level of testosterone in men exposed to non-ovulatory signals. This is due to the fact that an ovulating woman is capable of conceiving, and therefore a man who feels the smell of an ovulating woman is given a signal to sexual activity.[123]

Socioeconomic context

The socioeconomic environment of humans are a context which affect their brain development.[124] It has been argued that H. sapiens is unsustainable by nature – that unsustainability is an inevitable emergent property of his unaltered nature.[125] It has also been argued that human nature is not necessarily resulting in unsustainability but is embedded in and affected by a socioeconomic system that is not having an inevitable structure[126][additional citation(s) needed] – that the contemporary socioeconomic macrosystem affects human activities.[127] A paper published in 1997 concluded that humanity suffer consequences of a "poor fit" between inherited natures and "many of the constructed environments in organizational society".[128] Designing a "cultural narrative" explicitly for living on a finite planet may be suitable for overriding "outdated" innate tendencies.[125]

Human nature – which some have argued to vary to some extent per individual and in time, not be static and, at least in the future, to some extent be purposely alterable[129] – is one of the factors that shape which, how and when human activities are conducted. The contemporary socioeconomic and collective decision-making mechanisms are structures that may affect the expression of human nature – for instance, innate tendencies to seek survival, well-being, respect and status that some consider fundamental to humans[130] may result in varying product-designs, types of work, public infrastructure-designs and the distribution and prevalence of each. As with the nature versus nurture debate, which is concerned whether – or to which degrees – human behavior is determined by the environment or by a person's genes, scientific research is inconclusive about the degree to which human nature is shaped by and manageable by systemic structures as well as about how and to which degrees these structures can and should be purposely altered swiftly globally.

See also

References

  1. ^ "human nature." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Inc. Retrieved 21 June 2020.
  2. ^ Duignan, Brian, and Emily Rodriguez, eds. [2009] 2018. "Human nature." Encyclopædia Britannica.
  3. ^ "human nature." Dictionary.com. Random House Inc. 2020. Retrieved 21 June 2020.
  4. ^ "human nature." Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [2013] 2020.
  5. ^ a b c Hannon, Elizabeth; Lewens, Tim, eds. (2018-07-19). Why We Disagree About Human Nature. Oxford Scholarship Online. Vol. 1. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823650.001.0001. ISBN 9780198823650.
  6. ^ a b c Kronfeldner, Maria; Roughley, Neil; Toepfer, Georg (September 2014). "Recent Work on Human Nature: Beyond Traditional Essences". Philosophy Compass. 9 (9): 642–652. doi:10.1111/phc3.12159. ISSN 1747-9991.
  7. ^ a b c Downes, Stephen M.; Machery, Edouard, eds. (2013). Arguing About Human Nature: Contemporary Debates. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415894401.
  8. ^ Ramachandran, V. S. (1996). "What neurological syndromes can tell us about human nature: some lessons from phantom limbs, capgras syndrome, and anosognosia". Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology. 61: 115–134. doi:10.1101/SQB.1996.061.01.015. ISSN 0091-7451. PMID 9246441.
  9. ^ Blank, Robert H. (2002). "Review of Jean-Pierre Changeux and Paul Ricoeur. 2000. What Makes Us Think? A Neuroscientist and Philosopher Argue about Ethics, Human Nature, and the Brain". The American Journal of Bioethics. 2 (4): 69–70. doi:10.1162/152651602320957718. ISSN 1536-0075. PMID 22494253. S2CID 207638942.
  10. ^ Fowler, James H.; Schreiber, Darren (2008-11-07). "Biology, politics, and the emerging science of human nature". Science. 322 (5903): 912–914. Bibcode:2008Sci...322..912F. doi:10.1126/science.1158188. ISSN 1095-9203. PMID 18988845. S2CID 206512952.
  11. ^ Paulson, Steve; Berlin, Heather A.; Miller, Christian B.; Shermer, Michael (2016). "The moral animal: virtue, vice, and human nature". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1384 (1): 39–56. Bibcode:2016NYASA1384...39P. doi:10.1111/nyas.13067. ISSN 1749-6632. PMID 27248691. S2CID 13779050.
  12. ^ a b Gilden, Hilail, ed. 1989. "Progress or Return." In An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
  13. ^ Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1078b.
  14. ^ Saunders, Jason Lewis. 1995. "." Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 27 May 2011. Retrieved 7 February 2011.
  15. ^ "TELEOLOGICAL REALISM IN BIOLOGY". www.academia.edu. Retrieved 2016-02-23.[permanent dead link]
  16. ^ Aristotle's Metaphysics
  17. ^ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I & VI; Plato, Republic IV.
  18. ^ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, I, 1098a.
  19. ^ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VIII. 1162a; Aristotle, Politics 1252a.
  20. ^ Aristotle, Politics 1252b.
  21. ^ Aristotle, Poetics 1148b.
  22. ^ Newman, William Lambert, ed. 1887. The Politics of Aristotle: With an Introduction, Two Prefatory Essays and Notes Critical and Explanatory. Clarendon Press. Pp. 189–190.
  23. ^ Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics X
  24. ^ a b c d Tang, Paul C., and N. Basafa. 1988. "Human Nature in Chinese Thought: A Wittgensteinian Treatment." Proceedings of the 12th International Wittgenstein Symposium 1988. International Wittgenstein Symposium.
  25. ^ Yen, Hung-Chung. 2015. "Human Nature and Learning in Ancient China." Pp. 19–43 in Education as Cultivation in Chinese Culture. Singapore: Springer.
  26. ^ Mencius, "Duke Wen of Teng I", 1. quote: 「孟子道性善，言必稱堯舜。」. James Legge's translation: Mencius discoursed [...] how the nature of man is good, and when speaking, always made laudatory reference to Yao and Shun.""
  27. ^ a b c d e f g h i Van Norden, Bryan (3 December 2014). "Mencius". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  28. ^ a b c d Goldin, Paul R. (6 July 2018). "Xunzi". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  29. ^ a b c d e f g Wong, David (14 September 2018). "Chinese Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  30. ^ Van Norden, Bryan (3 December 2014). "Mencius". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. & Wong, David (14 September 2018). "Chinese Ethics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  31. ^ a b Moody, Peter R. (January 2008). "Rational Choice Analysis In Classical Chinese Political Thought: The "Han Feizi"". Polity. 40 (1): 102–103. doi:10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300068. S2CID 143895705.
  32. ^ a b c Ivanhoe, P. J. (1994). "Human Nature and Moral Understanding in Xunzi". International Philosophical Quarterly. 34 (2): 167–175. doi:10.5840/ipq19943421.
  33. ^ a b Moody, Peter R. (January 2008). "Rational Choice Analysis In Classical Chinese Political Thought: The "Han Feizi"". Polity. 40 (1): 104–106. doi:10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300068. S2CID 143895705.
  34. ^ Xunzi "Xing'e". quote:「人之性惡，其善者偽也。」
  35. ^ Puett, Michael J. (2001). The Ambivalence of Creation: Debates Concerning Innovation and Artifice in Early China. Stanford University Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-8047-3623-7.
  36. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Pines, Yuri (16 November 2018). "Legalism in Chinese Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  37. ^ a b c Fu, Zhengyuan (1996). China's legalists: The earliest totalitarians and their art of ruling. M.E. Sharpe. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-56324-779-8.
  38. ^ Duiker, William J.; Spielvogel, Jackson J. (2008-12-26). "China in Antiquity". World History, Volume I: To 1800 (6th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-495-56902-2.
  39. ^ a b c d e f g Flanagan, Owen; Hu, Jing (June 2011). "Han Fei Zi's Philosophical Psychology: Human Nature, Scarcity, and the Neo-Darwinian Consensus". Journal of Chinese Philosophy. 38 (2): 293–316. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6253.2011.01632.x.
  40. ^ a b c Tulloch, John. 1876. Christian Doctrine of Sin. Armstrong: Scribner.
  41. ^ James, William. 1902. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. The Modern Library. p. 473.
  42. ^ González, Justo L. 2005. "Anthropology." P. 8 in Essential Theological Terms. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
  43. ^ Vanhoozer, Kevin J., gen. ed. 2005. "Human Being, Doctrine of." Pp. 310 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Baker Publishing Group.
  44. ^ Ackerman, Kenneth. "Anthropology and Human Nature, 13" (PDF).
  45. ^ "Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText". www.vatican.va.
  46. ^ Berkhof, Louis. 1996. Systematic Theology. Michigan: Eerdmans. p. 183.
  47. ^ "Genesis Chapter 1 (NIV)".
  48. ^ a b c d e Hoekema, Anthony A. 1986. Created in God's Image. Michigan: Eerdmans.
  49. ^ Vanhoozer, Kevin J., gen. ed. 2005. "Image of God." Pp. 318–19 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Baker Publishing Group.
  50. ^ Wood, James. 1813. A Dictionary of the Holy Bible. Griffin and Rudd. p. 34.
  51. ^ Jeeves, Malcolm. 2006. Human Nature: Reflections on the Integration of Psychology and Christianity. Templeton Press. p. 115.
  52. ^ Psalm 51:5
  53. ^ "Romans 7:18. - - Bible Gateway". www.biblegateway.com.
  54. ^ Kevin J. Vanhoozer, gen. ed., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Baker, 2005), 312.
  55. ^ "original sin." The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press. 2009.
  56. ^ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Eerdmans, 1986), 152.
  57. ^ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Eerdmans, 1996), 246.
  58. ^ Calvin, John. "2". Commentary on Romans.
  59. ^ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Eerdmans, 1986), 158.
  60. ^ James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible: Pleroma-Zuzim (C. Scribner's Sons, 1902) s. v. "Sin," 528, 534.
  61. ^ "Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:19 - GOD'S WORD Translation". Bible Gateway.
  62. ^ "Romans 7:18 - NIRV - I know there is nothing good in my sinful natur..." Bible Study Tools.
  63. ^ "Sarx - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard". Bible Study Tools.
  64. ^ John Tulloch, Christian Doctrine of Sin (Scribner, Armstrong, 1876), 175.
  65. ^ Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-286092-7. pp. 2-3.
  66. ^ "Dr. Burton White, 84, believed children should avoid day care - The Boston Globe". The Boston Globe.
  67. ^ White, Burton L. 1995. Raising a Happy, Unspoiled Child (rev. ed.). Touchstone. pp. 98, 269.
  68. ^ William Graham Sumner (1914). The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays. Yale University. p. 233.
  69. ^ What Social Classes Owe to Each Other. Harper & Brothers. 1883.
  70. ^ Harris, Thomas A. [1968] 2004. I'm OK — You're OK (Quill ed.). New York: HarperCollins. p. 233.
  71. ^ Sober, Elliott, and David Sloan Wilson. 1998. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-93046-0. pp. 394.
  72. ^ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Eerdmans, 1986), 187-188.
  73. ^ Walter A. Elwell, ed, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker, 2001), 399.
  74. ^ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Eerdmans, 1986), 101.
  75. ^ Kevin J. Vanhoozer, gen. ed., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Baker, 2005), 135, 313.
  76. ^ Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God's Image (Eerdmans, 1986), 21, 24.
  77. ^ Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard, eds, Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Mercer University, 1990), 741.
  78. ^ "Bible Gateway passage: Romans 12:2 - New Revised Standard Version". Bible Gateway.
  79. ^ "Colossians Chapter 3 (NIV)".
  80. ^ "Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 5:20-23 - Contemporary English Version". Bible Gateway.
  81. ^ "Bible Gateway passage: Philippians 2:4 - New Revised Standard Version". Bible Gateway.
  82. ^ "Francis Bacon: Novum Organum (1620)". www.constitution.org. pp. Book II, Section II. Retrieved 2016-02-23.
  83. ^ Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan, XIII.9
  84. ^ Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Kenneth P. Winkler (ed.), Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, IN, 1996, pp. 33–36.
  85. ^ Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract, Translated by Maurice Cranston, Published by Penguin Classics, 1968, ISBN 0-14-044201-4, pg. 136
  86. ^ Velkley, Richard (2002), Being after Rousseau: Philosophy and Culture in Question, University of Chicago Press
  87. ^ Delaney, James, Rousseau and the Ethics of Virtue, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006, ISBN 0-8264-8724-6, pg. 49–52
  88. ^ a b An Enquiry into the Sources of Morals Section 5.1
  89. ^ Fuentes, Agustín, and Aku Visala. Conversations on human nature. Routledge, 2016.
  90. ^ a b c d e Hull, David L. (January 1986). "On Human Nature". PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1986 (2): 3–13. doi:10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1986.2.192787. ISSN 0270-8647. S2CID 87471111.
  91. ^ Ghiselin, Michael T. (1997). Metaphysics and the origins of species. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  92. ^ Buller, David J. (2005). Adapting minds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  93. ^ a b c d e f g h i Ramsey, Grant (December 2013). "Human Nature in a Post-essentialist World". Philosophy of Science. 80 (5): 983–993. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.462.7085. doi:10.1086/673902. ISSN 0031-8248. S2CID 146458573. Retrieved 2019-01-21 – via ResearchGate.
  94. ^ a b c d e f g Machery, Edouard (June 2008). "A Plea for Human Nature". Philosophical Psychology. 21 (3): 321–329. doi:10.1080/09515080802170119. ISSN 0951-5089. S2CID 145481746.
  95. ^ a b c Samuels, Richard (2012). "Science and Human Nature". Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement. 70 (4887): 587–588. doi:10.1017/S1358246112000021. PMC 2079588 – via PhilPapers.
  96. ^ Okasha, Samir (2002). "Darwinian Metaphysics: Species and the Question of Essentialism". Synthese. 131 (2): 191–213. doi:10.1023/A:1015731831011. S2CID 18233883.
  97. ^ a b c Machery, Edouard (2018-07-19). Doubling Down on the Nomological Notion of Human Nature. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823650.003.0002. ISBN 9780191862267.
  98. ^ Fuentes, A. and Visala, A., 2016. Conversations on human nature. Routledge.
  99. ^ Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. p. 44.
  100. ^ a b c d e f Bostrom, Nick (2005). "In Defense of Posthuman Dignity". Bioethics. 19 (3): 202–14. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00437.x. PMID 16167401.
  101. ^ a b c d Buchanan, Allen (2009). "Human nature and enhancement". Bioethics. 23 (3): 141–150. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00633.x. PMID 19161567. S2CID 35039986.
  102. ^ Habermas, Jurgen (2003). The Future of Human Nature.
  103. ^ Kass, Leon (2003). "Happy Souls: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Perfection". The New Atlantis. 1.
  104. ^ Fukuyama, Francis (2002). Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  105. ^ G. Annas, L. Andrews, and R. Isasi (2002). "Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations". American Journal of Law and Medicine. 28 (2–3): 162. doi:10.1017/S009885880001162X. PMID 12197461. S2CID 233430956.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
  106. ^ Kass, Leon (2002). Life, Liberty, and Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics. San Francisco: Encounter Books.
  107. ^ Habermas, Jurgen (2003). The Future of Human Nature. pp. 60–66.
  108. ^ Lewens, Tim (2012). "Human Nature: The Very Idea". Philosophy & Technology. 25 (4): 459–474. doi:10.1007/s13347-012-0063-x. S2CID 145176095.
  109. ^ Ramsey, Grant (2012). "How Human Nature Can Inform Human Enhancement: a Commentary on Tim Lewens's Human Nature: the Very Idea". Philosophy and Technology. 25 (4): 479–483. doi:10.1007/s13347-012-0087-2. S2CID 144064640.
  110. ^ Bostrom, Nick (June 2005). "In Defense of Posthuman Dignity". Bioethics. 19 (3): 202–214. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2005.00437.x. ISSN 0269-9702. PMID 16167401.
  111. ^ Caplan, Arthur L. (2005-07-01). "Death as an unnatural process: Why is it wrong to seek a cure for ageing?". EMBO Reports. 6 (S1): S72–S75. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400435. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 1369280. PMID 15995668.
  112. ^ Ridley, Matt (2003). The Red Queen: Sex And The Evolution of Human Nature. Perennial. p. 4. ISBN 0060556579.
  113. ^ Hoehl, Stefanie; Hellmer, Kahl; Johansson, Maria; Gredebäck, Gustaf (2017). "Itsy Bitsy Spider…: Infants React with Increased Arousal to Spiders and Snakes". Frontiers in Psychology. 8: 1710. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01710. PMC 5651927. PMID 29093687.
  114. ^ Bornstein, Marc H.; Putnick, Diane L.; Rigo, Paola; Esposito, Gianluca; Swain, James E.; Suwalsky, Joan T. D.; Su, Xueyun; Du, Xiaoxia; Zhang, Kaihua; Cote, Linda R.; De Pisapia, Nicola; Venuti, Paola (2017). "Neurobiology of culturally common maternal responses to infant cry". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (45): E9465–E9473. doi:10.1073/pnas.1712022114. PMC 5692572. PMID 29078366.
  115. ^ Haun, Daniel B.M.; Rekers, Yvonne; Tomasello, Michael (2012). "Majority-Biased Transmission in Chimpanzees and Human Children, but Not Orangutans". Current Biology. 22 (8): 727–731. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.006. PMID 22503497.
  116. ^ Curtis, Valerie; Aunger, Robert; deBarra, Mícheál (2011). "Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 366 (1563): 389–401. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0117. PMC 3013466. PMID 21199843.
  117. ^ Weierstall, Roland; Moran, James; Giebel, Gilda; Elbert, Thomas (2014). "Testosterone reactivity and identification with a perpetrator or a victim in a story are associated with attraction to violence-related cues". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 37 (3): 304–312. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.016. PMID 24367977.
  118. ^ Gettler, L. T.; McDade, T. W.; Feranil, A. B.; Kuzawa, C. W. (2011). "Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (39): 16194–16199. doi:10.1073/pnas.1105403108. PMC 3182719. PMID 21911391.
  119. ^ Grebe, Nicholas M.; Sarafin, Ruth E.; Strenth, Chance R.; Zilioli, Samuele (2019). "Pair-bonding, fatherhood, and the role of testosterone: A meta-analytic review". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 98: 221–233. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.010. PMID 30639674. S2CID 58635068.
  120. ^ Dabbs, J. M.; Frady, R. L.; Carr, T. S.; Besch, N. F. (1987). "Saliva testosterone and criminal violence in young adult prison inmates". Psychosomatic Medicine. 49 (2): 174–182. doi:10.1097/00006842-198703000-00007. PMID 3575604. S2CID 39757740.
  121. ^ Dabbs, James; Hargrove, Marian F. (1997). "Age, Testosterone, and Behavior Among Female Prison Inmates". Psychosomatic Medicine. 59 (5): 477–480. doi:10.1097/00006842-199709000-00003. PMID 9316179. S2CID 19900226.
  122. ^ Goetz, Stefan M.M.; Tang, Lingfei; Thomason, Moriah E.; Diamond, Michael P.; Hariri, Ahmad R.; Carré, Justin M. (2014). "Testosterone Rapidly Increases Neural Reactivity to Threat in Healthy Men: A Novel Two-Step Pharmacological Challenge Paradigm". Biological Psychiatry. 76 (4): 324–331. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.01.016. PMC 9552187. PMID 24576686. S2CID 23764095.
  123. ^ Miller, Saul L.; Maner, Jon K. (2010). "Scent of a Woman". Psychological Science. 21 (2): 276–283. doi:10.1177/0956797609357733. PMID 20424057. S2CID 18170407.
  124. ^ Hackman, Daniel A.; Farah, Martha J.; Meaney, Michael J. (September 2010). "Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 11 (9): 651–659. doi:10.1038/nrn2897. ISSN 1471-0048. PMC 2950073. PMID 20725096.
  125. ^ a b Rees, William (1 October 2010). "What's blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial". Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy. 6 (2): 13–25. doi:10.1080/15487733.2010.11908046.
  126. ^ "Human Nature and Capitalism | AEI". American Enterprise Institute - AEI. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
  127. ^ Tromboni, Flavia; Liu, Jianguo; Ziaco, Emanuele; Breshears, David D.; Thompson, Kimberly L.; Dodds, Walter K.; Dahlin, Kyla M.; LaRue, Elizabeth A.; Thorp, James H.; Viña, Andrés; Laguë, Marysa M.; Maasri, Alain; Yang, Hongbo; Chandra, Sudeep; Fei, Songlin (2021). "Macrosystems as metacoupled human and natural systems". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 19 (1): 20–29. doi:10.1002/fee.2289. ISSN 1540-9309.
  128. ^ Nicholson, Nigel (1 September 1997). "Evolutionary Psychology: Toward a New View of Human Nature and Organizational Society". Human Relations. 50 (9): 1053–1078. doi:10.1023/A:1016937216809. ISSN 1573-9716. S2CID 189782635. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
  129. ^ Buchanan, Allen (2009). "Human Nature and Enhancement". Bioethics. 23 (3): 141–150. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00633.x. ISSN 1467-8519. PMID 19161567. S2CID 35039986. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
  130. ^ Anderson, Cameron; Hildreth, John Angus D.; Howland, Laura (2015). "Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature". Psychological Bulletin. 141 (3): 574–601. doi:10.1037/a0038781. PMID 25774679.

Further reading

External links

 
Wikiquote has quotations related to Human nature.

March 12, 2023
human, nature, other, uses, disambiguation, concept, that, denotes, fundamental, dispositions, characteristics, including, ways, thinking, feeling, acting, that, humans, said, have, naturally, term, often, used, denote, essence, humankind, what, means, human, . For other uses see Human nature disambiguation Human nature is a concept that denotes the fundamental dispositions and characteristics including ways of thinking feeling and acting that humans are said to have naturally 1 2 3 4 The term is often used to denote the essence of humankind or what it means to be human This usage has proven to be controversial in that there is dispute as to whether or not such an essence actually exists Arguments about human nature have been a central focus of philosophy for centuries and the concept continues to provoke lively philosophical debate 5 6 7 While both concepts are distinct from one another discussions regarding human nature are typically related to those regarding the comparative importance of genes and environment in human development i e nature versus nurture Accordingly the concept also continues to play a role in academic fields such as the natural sciences social sciences history and philosophy in which various theorists claim to have yielded insight into human nature 8 9 10 11 Human nature is traditionally contrasted with human attributes that vary among societies such as those associated with specific cultures The concept of nature as a standard by which to make judgments is traditionally said to have begun in Greek philosophy at least in regard to its heavy influence on Western and Middle Eastern languages and perspectives 12 By late antiquity and medieval times the particular approach that came to be dominant was that of Aristotle s teleology whereby human nature was believed to exist somehow independently of individuals causing humans to simply become what they become This in turn has been understood as also demonstrating a special connection between human nature and divinity whereby human nature is understood in terms of final and formal causes More specifically this perspective believes that nature itself or a nature creating divinity has intentions and goals including the goal for humanity to live naturally Such understandings of human nature see this nature as an idea or form of a human 13 However the existence of this invariable and metaphysical human nature is subject of much historical debate continuing into modern times Against Aristotle s notion of a fixed human nature the relative malleability of man has been argued especially strongly in recent centuries firstly by early modernists such as Thomas Hobbes John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau In his Emile or On Education Rousseau wrote We do not know what our nature permits us to be 14 Since the early 19th century such thinkers as Hegel Darwin Freud Marx Kierkegaard Nietzsche and Sartre as well as structuralists and postmodernists more generally have also sometimes argued against a fixed or innate human nature Charles Darwin s theory of evolution has particularly changed the shape of the discussion supporting the proposition that mankind s ancestors were not like mankind today More recent scientific perspectives such as behaviorism determinism and the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychology claim to be neutral regarding human nature citation needed As in much of modern science such disciplines seek to explain with little or no recourse to metaphysical causation 15 They can be offered to explain the origins of human nature and its underlying mechanisms or to demonstrate capacities for change and diversity which would arguably citation needed violate the concept of a fixed human nature Contents 1 Classical Greek philosophy 1 1 Aristotle 1 1 1 Theory of four causes 2 Chinese philosophy 2 1 Confucianism 2 1 1 Mencius 2 1 2 Xunzi 2 2 Legalism 3 Christian theology 3 1 Created human nature 3 2 Fallen human nature 3 2 1 Empirical view 3 2 2 20th century Liberal Theology 3 3 Regenerated human nature 4 Early modern philosophy 5 Contemporary philosophy 5 1 Criticism of the concept of human nature Hull 5 2 Defences of the concept of human nature 5 2 1 Nomological account Machery 5 2 1 1 Problems with the nomological account 5 2 2 Causal essentialist account Samuels 5 2 3 Life history trait cluster account Ramsey 5 3 Human nature and human enhancement 6 Scientific understanding 6 1 Instinctual behaviour 6 2 Hormones 6 3 Socioeconomic context 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External linksClassical Greek philosophy EditMain article Ancient Greek philosophy Classical Greek philosophyPhilosophy in classical Greece is the ultimate origin of the Western conception of the nature of things 12 According to Aristotle the philosophical study of human nature itself originated with Socrates who turned philosophy from study of the heavens to study of the human things 16 Though leaving no written works Socrates is said to have studied the question of how a person should best live It is clear from the works of his students Plato and Xenophon and also from the accounts of Aristotle Plato s student that Socrates was a rationalist and believed that the best life and the life most suited to human nature involved reasoning The Socratic school was the dominant surviving influence in philosophical discussion in the Middle Ages amongst Islamic Christian and Jewish philosophers The human soul in the works of Plato and Aristotle has a nature that is divided in a specifically human way One part is specifically human and rational being further divided into 1 a part which is rational on its own and 2 a spirited part which can understand reason Other parts of the soul are home to desires or passions similar to those found in animals In both Aristotle and Plato s ideas spiritedness thumos is distinguished from the other passions epithumia 17 The proper function of the rational was to rule the other parts of the soul helped by spiritedness By this account using one s reason is the best way to live and philosophers are the highest types of humans Aristotle Edit Aristotle Plato s most famous student made some of the most famous and influential statements about human nature In his works apart from using a similar scheme of a divided human soul some clear statements about human nature are made In contrast to other animals humans have reason or language logos in their soul psyche According to Aristotle this means that the work ergos of a human is the actualization energeia of the soul in accordance with reason 18 Based upon this reasoning the medieval followers of Aristotle formulated the doctrine that man is the Rational Animal Man is a conjugal animal An animal that is born to couple in adulthood In doing so man builds a household oikos and in more successful cases a clan or small village run upon patriarchal lines 19 However humans naturally tend to connect their villages into cities poleis which are more self sufficient and complete Man is a political animal An animal with an innate propensity to develop more complex communities i e the size of a city or town with systems of law making and a division of labor This type of community is different in kind from a large family and requires the use of human reason Cities should not be run by a patriarch like a village 20 Man is a mimetic animal Man loves to use his imagination and not only to make laws and run town councils W e enjoy looking at accurate likenesses of things which are themselves painful to see obscene beasts for instance and corpses The reason why we enjoy seeing likenesses is that as we look we learn and infer what each is for instance that is so and so 21 For Aristotle reason is not only what is most special about humanity compared to other animals but it is also what we were meant to achieve at our best Much of Aristotle s description of human nature is still influential today However the particular teleological idea that humans are meant or intended to be something has become much less popular in modern times 22 Theory of four causes Edit For the Socratics human nature and all natures are metaphysical concepts Aristotle developed the standard presentation of this approach with his theory of four causes whereby every living thing exhibits four aspects or causes matter hyle form eidos effect kinoun and end telos For example an oak tree is made of plant cells matter grows from an acorn effect exhibits the nature of oak trees form and grows into a fully mature oak tree end According to Aristotle human nature is an example of a formal cause Likewise our end is to become a fully actualized human being including fully actualizing the mind Aristotle suggests that the human intellect noῦs nous while smallest in bulk is the most significant part of the human psyche and should be cultivated above all else 23 The cultivation of learning and intellectual growth of the philosopher is thereby also the happiest and least painful life Chinese philosophy EditConfucianism Edit Portrait of Mencius a Confucian philosopher Human nature is a central question in Chinese philosophy 24 From the Song dynasty the theory of potential or innate goodness of human beings became dominant in Confucianism 25 Mencius Edit Mencius argues that human nature is good 26 24 27 understanding human nature as the innate tendency to an ideal state that s expected to be formed under the right conditions 28 Therefore humans have the capacity to be good even though they are not all good 28 According to Mencian theory human nature contains four beginnings 端 duan of morality 29 a sense of compassion that develops into benevolence 仁 ren a sense of shame and disdain that develops into righteousness 義 yi a sense of respect and courtesy that develops into propriety 禮 li and a sense of right and wrong that develops into wisdom 智 zhi 27 29 The beginnings of morality are characterized by both affective motivations and intuitive judgments such as what s right and wrong deferential respectful or disdainful 29 In Mencius view goodness is the result of the development of innate tendencies toward the virtues of benevolence righteousness wisdom and propriety 27 The tendencies are manifested in moral emotions for every human being 27 Reflection 思 si upon the manifestations of the four beginnings leads to the development of virtues 27 It brings recognition that virtue takes precedence over satisfaction but a lack of reflection inhibits moral development 29 In other words humans have a constitution comprising emotional predispositions that direct them to goodness 27 Mencius also addresses the question why the capacity for evil is not grounded in human nature 27 If an individual becomes bad it is not the result of his or her constitution as their constitution contains the emotional predispositions that direct to goodness but a matter of injuring or not fully developing his or her constitution in the appropriate direction 27 He recognizes desires of the senses as natural predispositions distinct from the four beginnings 29 People can be misled and led astray by their desires if they do not engage their ethical motivations 27 He therefore places responsibility on people to reflect on the manifestations of the four beginnings 29 Herein it is not the function of ears and eyes but the function of the heart to reflect as sensory organs are associated with sensual desires but the heart is the seat of feeling and thinking 30 Mencius considers core virtues benevolence righteousness propriety and wisdom as internal qualities that humans originally possess so people can not attain full satisfaction by solely pursuits of self interest due to their innate morality 31 Wong 2018 underscores that Mencius characterization of human nature as good means that it contains predispositions to feel and act in morally appropriate ways and to make intuitive normative judgments that can with the right nurturing conditions give human beings guidance as to the proper emphasis to be given to the desires of the senses 29 Mencius sees ritual i e the standard for how humans should treat and interact with each other as an outward expression of the inherent moral sense in human nature 31 Xunzi Edit Mencius view of ritual is in contrast to Xunzi who does not view moral sense as an innate part of human nature 32 Rather a moral sense is acquired through learning in which one engages in and reflects upon a set of ritual practices 32 Xunzi s claim that human nature is bad according to Ivanhoe 1994 means that humans do not have a conception of morality and therefore must acquire it through learning lest destructive and alienating competition inevitably arises from human desire 32 Xunzi understands human nature as the basic faculties capacities and desires that people have from birth 28 He argues that human nature is evil and that any goodness is the result of human activity 24 33 It is human nature to seek profit because humans desire for sensory satisfaction 33 Xunzi states that Now the nature of man is evil It must depend on teachers and laws to become correct and achieve propriety and righteousness and then it becomes disciplined 24 He underscores that goodness comes from the traits and habits acquired through conscious actions which he calls artifice 偽 wei 34 28 Therefore morality is seen as a human artifice but not as a part of human nature 35 Legalism Edit Statue of Shang Yang a prominent Legalist scholar and statesman Human nature is one of the major pillars of Legalism in China 36 However Legalists do not concern themselves with whether human goodness or badness is inborn and whether human beings possess the fundamental qualities associated with that nature 36 Legalists see the overwhelming majority of human beings as selfish in nature 36 They hold the view that human nature is evil in which individuals are driven by selfishness 37 Therefore people are not expected to always behave morally 36 For instance due to the corrupt nature of humans Legalists did not trust that officials would carry out their duties in a fair and impartial manner 38 There is a perpetual political struggle characterized by conflict among contending human actors and interests where individuals are easily tempted due to their selfish nature at the expense of others 37 According to Legalism selfishness in human nature can not be eliminated or altered by education or self cultivation 36 39 It dismisses the possibility that people can overcome their selfishness and considers the possibility that people can be driven by moral commitment to be exceptionally rare 36 Legalists do not see the individual morality of both the rulers or the ruled as an important concern in a political system 36 Instead Legalist thinkers such as Han Fei emphasize clear and impersonal norms and standards such as laws regulations and rules as the basis to maintain order 36 As human nature has an unchanging selfish but satiable core Han Fei argues that competition for external goods during times of scarcity produces disorder while times of abundance simply mean that people do not fall back into chaos and conflict but not that they are necessarily nice 39 Additionally Han Fei argues that people are all motivated by their unchanging selfish core to want whatever advantage they can gain from whomever they can gain such advantage which especially comes to expression in situations where people can act with impunity 39 Legalists posit that human selfishness can be an asset rather than a threat to a state 36 It is axiomatic in Legalism that the government can not be staffed by upright and trustworthy men of service because every member of the elite like any member of society will pursue their own interests and thus must be employed for their interests 36 Herein individuals must be allowed to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in a manner that benefits rather than contradicts the needs of a state 36 Therefore a political system that presupposes this human selfishness is the only viable system 36 In contrast a political system based on trust and respect rather than impersonal norms and standards brings great concern with regard to an ongoing and irresolvable power struggle 36 Rather checks and controls must be in place to limit the subversion of the system by its actors such as ministers and other officials 36 Legalists view the usage of reward and punishment as effective political controls as it is in human nature to have likes and dislikes 37 For instance according to the Legalist statesman Shang Yang it is crucial to investigate the disposition of people in terms of rewards and penalties when a law is established 36 He explains that a populace can not be driven to pursuits of agriculture or warfare if people consider these to be bitter or dangerous on the basis of calculations about their possible benefits but people can be directed toward these pursuits through the application of positive and negative incentives 36 As an implication of the selfish core in human nature Han Fei remarks that Those who act as ministers fear the penalties and hope to profit by the rewards 39 In Han Fei s view the only realistic option is a political system that produces equivalents of junzi 君子 who are virtuous exemplars in Confucianism but not junzi 39 This does not mean however that Han Fei makes a distinction between seeming and being good as he does not entertain the idea that humans are good 39 Rather as human nature is constituted by self interest he argues that humans can be shaped behaviorally to yield social order if it is in the individual s own self interest to abide by the norms i e different interests are aligned to each other and the social good which is most efficiently ensured if the norms are publicly and impartially enforced 39 Christian theology EditMain article Christian theology In Christian theology there are two ways of conceiving human nature The first is spiritual Biblical and theistic and the second is natural cosmical and anti theistic 40 6 The focus in this section is on the former As William James put it in his study of human nature from a religious perspective religion has a department of human nature 41 Various views of human nature have been held by theologians However there are some basic assertions in all biblical anthropology 42 Humankind has its origin in God its creator Humans bear the image of God Humans are to rule the rest of creation The Bible contains no single doctrine of human nature Rather it provides material for more philosophical descriptions of human nature 43 For example Creation as found in the Book of Genesis provides a theory on human nature 44 Catechism of the Catholic Church under the chapter Dignity of the human person provides an article about man as image of God vocation to beatitude freedom human acts passions moral conscience virtues and sin 45 Created human nature Edit As originally created the Bible describes two elements in human nature the body and the breath or spirit of life breathed into it by God By this was created a living soul meaning a living person 46 According to Genesis 1 27 this living person was made in the image of God 47 From the biblical perspective to be human is to bear the image of God 48 18 Two main modes of conceiving human nature the one of which is spiritual Biblical and theistic and the other natural cosmical and anti theistic John Tulloch 40 Genesis does not elaborate the meaning of the image of God but scholars find suggestions One is that being created in the image of God distinguishes human nature from that of the beasts 49 Another is that as God is able to make decisions and rule so humans made in God s image are able to make decisions and rule A third is that mankind possesses an inherent ability to set goals and move toward them 48 5 14 That God denoted creation as good suggests that Adam was created in the image of God in righteousness 50 Adam was created with ability to make right choices but also with the ability to choose sin by which he fell from righteousness into a state of sin and depravity 48 231 Thus according to the Bible humankind is not as God created it 51 Fallen human nature Edit Main article Fall of man By Adam s fall into sin human nature became corrupt although it retains the image of God Both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that sin is universal 48 17 141 For example Psalm 51 5 reads For behold I was conceived in iniquities and in sins did my mother conceive me 52 Jesus taught that everyone is a sinner naturally because it is mankind s nature and disposition to sin 40 124 5 Paul in Romans 7 18 speaks of his sinful nature 53 Such a recognition that there is something wrong with the moral nature of man is found in all religions 48 141 Augustine of Hippo coined a term for the assessment that all humans are born sinful original sin 54 Original sin is the tendency to sin innate in all human beings 55 The doctrine of original sin is held by the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant denominations but rejected by the Eastern Orthodox Church which holds the similar doctrine of ancestral fault The corruption of original sin extends to every aspect of human nature to reason and will as well as to appetites and impulses This condition is sometimes called total depravity 56 Total depravity does not mean that humanity is as thoroughly depraved as it could become 57 Commenting on Romans 2 14 John Calvin writes that all people have some notions of justice and rectitude which are implanted by nature all people 58 Adam embodied the whole of human nature so when Adam sinned all of human nature sinned 59 The Old Testament does not explicitly link the corruption of human nature to Adam s sin However the universality of sin implies a link to Adam In the New Testament Paul concurs with the universality of sin He also makes explicit what the Old Testament implied the link between humanity s sinful nature and Adam s sin 60 In Romans 5 19 Paul writes through Adam s disobedience humanity became sinful 61 Paul also applied humanity s sinful nature to himself there is nothing good in my sinful nature 62 63 The theological doctrine of original sin as an inherent element of human nature is not based only on the Bible It is in part a generalization from obvious facts open to empirical observation 64 Empirical view Edit A number of experts on human nature have described the manifestations of original i e the innate tendency to sin as empirical facts Biologist Richard Dawkins in his The Selfish Gene states that a predominant quality in a successful surviving gene is ruthless selfishness Furthermore this gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior 65 Child psychologist Burton L White finds a selfish trait in children from birth a trait that expresses itself in actions that are blatantly selfish 66 67 Sociologist William Graham Sumner finds it a fact that everywhere one meets fraud corruption ignorance selfishness and all the other vices of human nature 68 He enumerates the vices and passions of human nature as cupidity lust vindictiveness ambition and vanity Sumner finds such human nature to be universal in all people in all places and in all stations in society 69 Psychiatrist Thomas Anthony Harris on the basis of his data at hand observes sin or badness or evil or human nature whatever we call the flaw in our species is apparent in every person Harris calls this condition intrinsic badness or original sin 70 Empirical discussion questioning the genetic exclusivity of such an intrinsic badness proposition is presented by researchers Elliott Sober and David Sloan Wilson In their book Unto Others The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior they propose a theory of multilevel group selection in support of an inherent genetic altruism in opposition to the original sin exclusivity for human nature 71 20th century Liberal Theology Edit Liberal theologians in the early 20th century described human nature as basically good needing only proper training and education But the above examples document the return to a more realistic view of human nature as basically sinful and self centered Human nature needs to be regenerated to be able to live the unselfish life 72 Regenerated human nature Edit Main article Regeneration theology According to the Bible Adam s disobedience corrupted human nature but God mercifully regenerates 73 Regeneration is a radical change that involves a renewal of our human nature 74 Thus to counter original sin Christianity purposes a complete transformation of individuals by Christ 75 The goal of Christ s coming is that fallen humanity might be conformed to or transformed into the image of Christ who is the perfect image of God as in 2 Corinthians 4 4 76 The New Testament makes clear the universal need for regeneration 77 A sampling of biblical portrayals of regenerating human nature and the behavioral results follow being transformed by the renewing of your minds Romans 12 2 78 being transformed from one s old self or old man into a new self or new man Colossians 3 9 10 79 being transformed from people who hate others and are hard to get along with and who are jealous angry and selfish to people who are loving happy peaceful patient kind good faithful gentle and self controlled Galatians 5 20 23 80 being transformed from looking to your own interests to looking to the interests of others Philippians 2 4 81 Early modern philosophy EditOne of the defining changes that occurred at the end of the Middle Ages was the end of the dominance of Aristotelian philosophy and its replacement by a new approach to the study of nature including human nature citation needed In this approach all attempts at conjecture about formal and final causes were rejected as useless speculation citation needed Also the term law of nature now applied to any regular and predictable pattern in nature not literally a law made by a divine lawmaker and in the same way human nature became not a special metaphysical cause but simply whatever can be said to be typical tendencies of humans citation needed Although this new realism applied to the study of human life from the beginning for example in Machiavelli s works the definitive argument for the final rejection of Aristotle was associated especially with Francis Bacon Bacon sometimes wrote as if he accepted the traditional four causes It is a correct position that true knowledge is knowledge by causes And causes again are not improperly distributed into four kinds the material the formal the efficient and the final but he adapted these terms and rejected one of the three But of these the final cause rather corrupts than advances the sciences except such as have to do with human action The discovery of the formal is despaired of The efficient and the material as they are investigated and received that is as remote causes without reference to the latent process leading to the form are but slight and superficial and contribute little if anything to true and active science 82 This line of thinking continued with Rene Descartes whose new approach returned philosophy or science to its pre Socratic focus upon non human things Thomas Hobbes then Giambattista Vico and David Hume all claimed to be the first to properly use a modern Baconian scientific approach to human things Hobbes famously followed Descartes in describing humanity as matter in motion just like machines He also very influentially described man s natural state without science and artifice as one where life would be solitary poor nasty brutish and short 83 Following him John Locke s philosophy of empiricism also saw human nature as a tabula rasa In this view the mind is at birth a blank slate without rules so data are added and rules for processing them are formed solely by our sensory experiences 84 Jean Jacques Rousseau pushed the approach of Hobbes to an extreme and criticized it at the same time He was a contemporary and acquaintance of Hume writing before the French Revolution and long before Darwin and Freud He shocked Western civilization with his Second Discourse by proposing that humans had once been solitary animals without reason or language or communities and had developed these things due to accidents of pre history This proposal was also less famously made by Giambattista Vico In other words Rousseau argued that human nature was not only not fixed but not even approximately fixed compared to what had been assumed before him Humans are political and rational and have language now but originally they had none of these things 85 This in turn implied that living under the management of human reason might not be a happy way to live at all and perhaps there is no ideal way to live Rousseau is also unusual in the extent to which he took the approach of Hobbes asserting that primitive humans were not even naturally social A civilized human is therefore not only imbalanced and unhappy because of the mismatch between civilized life and human nature but unlike Hobbes Rousseau also became well known for the suggestion that primitive humans had been happier noble savages 86 Rousseau s conception of human nature has been seen as the origin of many intellectual and political developments of the 19th and 20th centuries 87 He was an important influence upon Kant Hegel and Marx and the development of German idealism historicism and romanticism What human nature did entail according to Rousseau and the other modernists of the 17th and 18th centuries were animal like passions that led humanity to develop language and reasoning and more complex communities or communities of any kind according to Rousseau In contrast to Rousseau David Hume was a critic of the oversimplifying and systematic approach of Hobbes Rousseau and some others whereby for example all human nature is assumed to be driven by variations of selfishness Influenced by Hutcheson and Shaftesbury he argued against oversimplification On the one hand he accepted that for many political and economic subjects people could be assumed to be driven by such simple selfishness and he also wrote of some of the more social aspects of human nature as something which could be destroyed for example if people did not associate in just societies On the other hand he rejected what he called the paradox of the sceptics saying that no politician could have invented words like honourable and shameful lovely and odious noble and despicable unless there was not some natural original constitution of the mind 88 Hume like Rousseau was controversial in his own time for his modernist approach following the example of Bacon and Hobbes of avoiding consideration of metaphysical explanations for any type of cause and effect He was accused of being an atheist He wrote We needn t push our researches so far as to ask Why do we have humanity i e a fellow feeling with others It s enough that we experience this as a force in human nature Our examination of causes must stop somewhere 88 After Rousseau and Hume the nature of philosophy and science changed branching into different disciplines and approaches and the study of human nature changed accordingly Rousseau s proposal that human nature is malleable became a major influence upon international revolutionary movements of various kinds while Hume s approach has been more typical in Anglo Saxon countries including the United States citation needed According to Edouard Machery the concept of human nature is an outgrowth of folk biology and in particular the concept of folk essentialism the tendency of ordinary people to ascribe essences to kinds Machery argues that while the idea that humans have an essence is a very old idea the idea that all humans have a unified human nature is relatively modern for a long time people thought of humans as us versus them and thus did not think of human beings as a unified kind 89 Contemporary philosophy EditThe concept of human nature is a source of ongoing debate in contemporary philosophy specifically within philosophy of biology a subfield of the philosophy of science Prominent critics of the concept David L Hull 90 Michael Ghiselin 91 and David Buller 92 see also 5 6 7 argue that human nature is incompatible with modern evolutionary biology Conversely defenders of the concept argue that when defined in certain ways human nature is both scientifically respectable and meaningful 5 6 7 93 94 95 Therefore the value and usefulness of the concept depends essentially on how one construes it This section summarizes the prominent construals of human nature and outlines the key arguments from philosophers on both sides of the debate Criticism of the concept of human nature Hull EditPhilosopher of science David L Hull has influentially argued that there is no such thing as human nature Hull s criticism is raised against philosophers who conceive human nature as a set of intrinsic phenotypic traits or characters that are universal among humans unique to humans and definitive of what it is to be a member of the biological species Homo sapiens In particular Hull argues that such essential sameness of human beings is temporary contingent and relatively rare in biology 90 He argues that variation insofar as it is the result of evolution is an essential feature of all biological species Moreover the type of variation which characterizes a certain species in a certain historical moment is to a large extent accidental 90 He writes 90 3 Periodically a biological species might be characterized by one or more characters which are both universally distributed among and limited to the organisms belonging to that species but such states of affairs are temporary contingent and relatively rare Hull reasons that properties universally shared by all members of a certain species are usually also possessed by members of other species whereas properties exclusively possessed by the members of a certain species are rarely possessed by all members of that species For these reasons Hull observes that in contemporary evolutionary taxonomy belonging to a particular species does not depend on the possession of any specific intrinsic properties Rather it depends on standing in the right kind of relations relations of genealogy or interbreeding depending on the precise species concept being used to other members of the species Consequently there can be no intrinsic properties that define what it is to be a member of the species Homo sapiens Individual organisms including humans are part of a species by virtue of their relations with other members of the same species not shared intrinsic properties According to Hull the moral significance of his argument lies in its impact on the biologically legitimate basis for the concept of human rights While it has long been argued that there is a sound basis for human rights in the idea that all human beings are essentially the same should Hull s criticism work such a basis at least on a biological level would disappear Nevertheless Hull does not perceive this to be a fundamental for human rights because people can choose to continue respecting human rights even without sharing the same human nature 90 Defences of the concept of human nature Edit Several contemporary philosophers have attempted to defend the notion of human nature against charges that it is incompatible with modern evolutionary biology by proposing alternative interpretations They claim that the concept of human nature continues to bear relevance in the fields of neuroscience and evolutionary biology Many have proposed non essentialist notions Others have argued that even if natural selection has shown that any attempt to base species membership on intrinsic essential properties is untenable essences can still be relational this would be consistent with the interbreeding ecological and phylogenetic species concepts which are accepted by modern evolutionary biology 96 These attempts aim to make natural selection compatible with a certain conception of human nature which is stable across time Nomological account Machery Edit Philosopher of science Edouard Machery has proposed that the above criticisms only apply to a specific definition or notion of human nature and not to human nature in general 94 He distinguishes between two different notions An essentialist notion of human nature Human nature is the set of properties that are separately necessary and jointly sufficient for being a human These properties are also usually considered as distinctive of human beings They are also intrinsic to humans and inherent to their essence 94 A nomological notion of human nature Human nature is the set of properties that humans tend to possess as a result of the evolution of their species 94 Machery clarifies that to count as being a result of evolution a property must have an ultimate explanation in Ernst Mayr s sense It must be possible to explain the trait as the product of evolutionary processes Importantly properties can count as part of human nature in the nomological sense even if they are not universal among humans and not unique to humans In other words nomological properties need not be necessary nor sufficient for being human Instead it is enough that these properties are shared by most humans as a result of the evolution of their species they need to be typical 97 Therefore human nature in the nomological sense does not define what it is to be a member of the species Homo sapiens Examples of properties that count as parts of human nature on the nomological definition include being bipedal having the capacity to speak having a tendency towards biparental investment in children having fear reactions to unexpected noises 94 Finally since they are the product of evolution properties belonging to the nomological notion of human nature are not fixed but they can change over time 97 Machery agrees with biologists and others philosophers of biology that the essentialist notion of human nature is incompatible with modern evolutionary biology we cannot explain membership in the human species by means of a definition or a set of properties However he maintains that this does not mean humans have no nature because we can accept the nomological notion which is not a definitional notion Therefore we should think of human nature as the many properties humans have in common as a result of evolution 94 Machery argues that notions of human nature can help explain why that while cultures are very diverse there are also many constants across cultures For Machery most forms of cultural diversity are in fact diversity on a common theme for example Machery observes that the concept of a kinship system is common across cultures but the exact form it takes and the specifics vary between cultures 98 Problems with the nomological account Edit Machery also highlights potential drawbacks of the nomological account 94 One is that the nomological notion is a watered down notion that cannot perform many of the roles that the concept of human nature is expected to perform in science and philosophy The properties endowed upon humans by the nomological account do not distinguish humans from other animals or define what it is to be human Machery pre empts this objection by claiming that the nomological concept of human nature still fulfils many roles He highlights the importance of a conception which picks out what humans share in common which can be used to make scientific psychological generalizations about human beings 97 One advantage of such a conception is that it gives an idea of the traits displayed by the majority of human beings which can be explained in evolutionary terms Another potential drawback is that the nomological account of human nature threatens to lead to the absurd conclusion that all properties of humans are parts of human nature According to the nomological account a trait is only part of human nature if it is a result of evolution However there is a sense in which all human traits are results of evolution For example the belief that water is wet is shared by all humans However this belief is only possible because we have for example evolved a sense of touch It is difficult to separate traits which are the result of evolution and those which are not Machery claims the distinction between proximate and ultimate explanation can do the work here only some human traits can be given an ultimate explanation he argues According to the philosopher Richard Samuels 95 the account of human nature is expected to fulfill the five following roles an organizing function that demarks a territory of scientific inquiry a descriptive function that is traditionally understood as specifying properties that are universal across and unique to human being a causal explanatory function that offers causal explanation for occurring human behaviours and features a taxonomic function that specifies possessing human nature as a necessary and sufficient criterion for belonging to the human species Invariances that assume the understanding that human nature is to some degree fixed invariable or at least hard to change and stable across time Samuels objects that Machery s nomological account fails to deliver on the causal explanatory function because it claims that superficial and co varying properties are the essence of human nature Thus human nature cannot be the underlying cause of these properties and accordingly cannot fulfill its causal explanatory role Philosopher Grant Ramsey also rejects Machery s nomological account For him defining human nature with respect to only universal traits fails to capture many important human characteristics 93 Ramsey quotes the anthropologist Clifford Geertz who claims that the notion that unless a cultural phenomenon is empirically universal it cannot reflect anything about the nature of man is about as logical as the notion that because sickle cell anemia is fortunately not universal it cannot tell us anything about human genetic processes It is not whether phenomena are empirically common that is critical in science but whether they can be made to reveal the enduring natural processes that underly them 99 Following Geertz Ramsey holds that the study of human nature should not rely exclusively on universal or near universal traits There are many idiosyncratic and particular traits of scientific interest Machery s account of human nature cannot give an account to such differences between men and women as the nomological account only picks out the common features within a species In this light the female menstrual cycle which is a biologically an essential and useful feature cannot be included in a nomological account of human nature 93 Ramsey 93 also objects that Machery uncritically adopts the innate acquired dichotomy distinguishing between human properties due to enculturation and those due to evolution Ramsey objects that human properties do not just fall in one of the two categories writing that any organismic property is going to be due to both heritable features of the organism as well as the particular environmental features the organism happens to encounter during its life 93 Causal essentialist account Samuels Edit Richard Samuels in an article titled Science and Human Nature proposes a causal essentialist view that human nature should be identified with a suite of mechanisms processes and structures that causally explain many of the more superficial properties and regularities reliably associated with humanity 95 This view is causal because the mechanisms causally explain the superficial properties reliably associated with humanity by referencing the underlying causal structures the properties belong to For example it is true that the belief that water is wet is shared by all humans yet it is not in itself a significant aspect of human nature Instead the psychological process that lead us to assign the word wetness to water is a universal trait shared by all human beings In this respect the superficial belief that water is wet reveals an important causal psychological process which is widely shared by most human beings The explanation is also essentialist because there is a core set of empirically discoverable cognitive mechanism that count as part of the human nature According to Samuels his view avoids the standard biological objections to human nature essentialism Samuels argues that the theoretical roles of human nature includes organizing role descriptive functions causal explanatory functions taxonomic functions and invariances In comparison with traditional essentialist view the causal essentialist view does not accomplish the taxonomic role of human nature the role of defining what it is to be human He claims however that no conception could achieve this as the fulfillment of the role would not survive evolutionary biologists objections articulated above by in Criticisms of the concept of human nature In comparison with Machery s nomological conception Samuels wants to restore the causal explanatory function of human nature He defines the essence of human nature as causal mechanisms and not as surface level properties For instance on this view linguistic behaviour is not part of human nature but the cognitive mechanisms underpinning linguistic behaviour might count as part of human nature Life history trait cluster account Ramsey Edit Grant Ramsey proposes an alternative account of human nature which he names the life history trait cluster account 93 This view stems from the recognition that the combination of a specific genetic constitution with a specific environment is not sufficient to determine how a life will go i e whether one is rich poor dies old dies young etc Many life histories are possible for a given individual each populated by a great number of traits Ramsey defines his conception of human nature in reference to the pattern of trait clusters within the totality of extant possible life histories 93 In other words there are certain life histories i e possible routes one s life can take for example being rich being a PhD student or getting ill Ramsey underlines the patterns behind these possible routes by delving into the causes of these life histories For example one can make the following claim Humans sweat when they get exhausted or one can also propose neurological claims such as Humans secrete Adrenaline when they are in flight fight mode This approach enables Ramsey to go beyond the superficial appearances and understand the similarities differences between individuals in a deeper level which refers to the causal mechanisms processes structures and constraints etc which lie beneath them Once we list all the possible life histories of an individual we can find these causal patterns and add them together to form the basis of individual nature Ramsey s next argumentative manoeuvre is to point out that traits are not randomly scattered across potential life histories there are patterns These patterns he states provide the basis for the notion of individual and human nature 93 987 While one s individual nature consists of the pattern of trait clusters distributed across that individual s set of possible life histories Human Nature Ramsey defines as the pattern of trait clusters within the totality of extant human possible life histories 93 987 Thus if we were to combine all possible life histories of all individuals in existence we would have access to the trait distribution patterns that constitute human nature Trait patterns on Ramsey s account can be captured in the form of conditional statements such as if female you develop ovaries or if male you develop testes These statements will not be true of all humans Ramsey contends that these statements capture part of human nature if they have a good balance of pervasiveness many people satisfy the antecedent of the conditional statement and robustness many people who satisfy the antecedent go on to satisfy the consequent Human nature and human enhancement Edit Main articles Bioconservatism and Transhumanism The contemporary debate between so called bioconservatives and transhumanists is directly related to the concept of human nature transhumanists argue that current human nature is improvable through the use of applied science and other rational methods 100 Bioconservatives believe that the costs outweigh the benefits in particular they present their position as a defense of human nature which according to them is threatened by human enhancement technologies Although this debate is mainly of an ethical kind it is deeply rooted in the different interpretations of human nature human freedom and human dignity which according to bioconservatives is specific to human beings while transhumanists think that it can be possessed also by posthumans As explained by Allen Buchanan 101 the literature against human enhancement is characterized by two main concerns that enhancement may alter or destroy human nature and that if enhancement alters or destroys human nature this will undercut our ability to ascertain the good as the good is determined by our nature 101 Bioconservatives include Jurgen Habermas 102 Leon Kass 103 Francis Fukuyama 104 and Bill McKibben 100 Some of the reasons why they oppose certain forms of human enhancement technology are to be found in the worry that such technology would be dehumanizing as they would undermine the human dignity intrinsically built in our human nature For instance they fear that becoming posthumans could pose a threat to ordinary humans 105 or be harmful to posthumans themselves 106 100 Jurgen Habermas makes the argument against the specific case of genetic modification of unborn children by their parents referred to as eugenic programming by Habermas His argument is two folded The most immediate threat is on the ethical freedom of programmed individuals and the subsequent threat is on the viability of liberal democracy Reasoning of the former can be formulated as the following Genetic programming of desirable traits capabilities and dispositions puts restrictions on a person s freedom to choose a life of his own to be the sole author of his existence A genetically programmed child may feel alienated from his identity which is now irreversibly co written by human agents other than himself This feeling of alienation resulted from contingency of a life s beginning that is not at one s disposal makes it difficult for genetically modified persons to perceive themselves as moral agents who can make ethical judgement freely and independently that is without any substantial or definitive interference from another agent Habermas proposes a second threat the undermining power of genetic programming on the viability of democracy The basis of liberal democracy Habermas rightfully claims is the symmetrical and independent mutual recognition among free equal and autonomous persons Genetic programming jeopardizes this condition by irreversibly subjecting children to permanent dependence on their parents thus depriving them of their perceived ability to be full citizens of the legal community This fundamental modification to human relationship erodes the foundation of liberal democracy and puts its viability in danger 107 The most famous proponent of transhumanism on the other hand is Oxford Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom According to Bostrom human enhancement technologies should be made widely available 100 as they would offer enormous potential for improving the lives of human beings without dehumanizing them for instance improving their intellectual and physical capacities or protecting them from suffering illnesses aging and physical and cognitive shortcomings 100 In response to bioconservatives transhumanists argue that expanding a person s capability set would increase her freedom of choice rather than reducing it 100 Allen Buchanan has questioned the relevance of the concept of human nature to this debate In Human Nature and Enhancement he argued that good but also bad characteristics are part of human nature and that changing the bad ones does not necessarily imply that the good ones will be affected Moreover Buchanan argued that the way we evaluate the good is independent of human nature in fact we can make coherent judgements about the defective aspects of human nature and if those defects were readied this need not affect our ability to judge what is good 101 Buchanan s conclusion is that the debate on enhancement of human beings would be more fruitful if it was conducted without appealing to the concept of human nature 101 Tim Lewens presented a similar position since the only notions of human nature which are compatible with biology offer no ethical guidance in debates over enhancement we should set the concept of human nature aside when debating about enhancement On the other hand folk neo Aristotelian conceptions of human nature seem to have normative implications but they have no basis in scientific research 108 Grant Ramsey replied to these claims arguing that his life history trait cluster account allows the concept of human nature to inform questions of human enhancement 109 Appeals to nature often fall foul of the naturalistic fallacy whereby certain capacities or traits are considered morally good in virtue of their naturalness The fallacy was initially introduced by G E Moore in 1903 who challenged philosopher s attempts to define good reductively in terms of natural properties such as desirable Reliance on the natural as a justification for resisting enhancement is criticised on several grounds by transhumanists against the bioconservative motivation to preserve or protect human nature For example Nick Bostrom asserts had Mother Nature been a real parent she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder 110 thus not worthy of unqualified protection Similarly Arthur Caplan opposes naturalistic objections to life extension enhancements by claiming that 111 The explanation of why ageing occurs has many of the attributes of a stochastic or chance phenomenon And this makes ageing unnatural and in no way an intrinsic part of human nature As such there is no reason why it is intrinsically wrong to try to reverse or cure ageing Scientific understanding EditSee also Evolutionary psychology and Evolution of the brain Evolution of the human brain Science writer and journalist Matt Ridley argued that understanding human nature and its evolution over time requires understanding how human sexuality evolved 112 Instinctual behaviour Edit See also Instinct In humans Instinctual behaviour an inherent inclination towards a particular complex behaviour has been observed in humans Emotions such as fear are part of human nature see Fear Innate fear for example However they are also known to have been malleable and not fixed see neuroplasticity and Fear Inability to experience fear Congenital fear of snakes and spiders was found in six month old babies 113 Infant cry is a manifestation of instinct The infant cannot otherwise protect itself for survival during its long period of maturation The maternal instinct manifest particularly in response to the infant cry has long been respected as one of the most powerful Its mechanism has been partly elucidated by observations with functional MRI of the mother s brain 114 The herd instinct is found in human children and chimpanzee cubs but is apparently absent in young orangutans 115 Squeamishness and disgust in humans is an instinct developed during evolution to protect the body and avoid infection by various diseases 116 Hormones can affect instinctual behaviour Hormones Edit This section is missing information about beneficial and potentially beneficial effects of high endogenous testosterone in men Please expand the section to include this information Further details may exist on the talk page April 2021 TestosteroneTestosterone main male sex hormone primes several instincts especially sexuality also dominance manifest in self affirmation the urge to win over rivals see competitiveness to dominate a hierarchy see dominance hierarchy and to respond to violent signals in men see aggression with weakening of empathy 117 In men a decrease in testosterone level after the birth of a child in the family was found so that the father s energies are more directed to nurturing protecting and caring for the child 118 119 Unduly high levels of this hormone are often associated in a person with aggressiveness illegal behavior violence against others such phenomena as banditry etc citation needed This is confirmed by studies conducted in prisons 120 121 The amount of testosterone in men may increase dramatically in response to any competition 122 In men the level of testosterone varies depending on whether it is susceptible to the smell of an ovulating or non ovulatory woman see menstrual cycle Men exposed to the odors of ovulating women maintained a stable level of testosterone which was higher than the level of testosterone in men exposed to non ovulatory signals This is due to the fact that an ovulating woman is capable of conceiving and therefore a man who feels the smell of an ovulating woman is given a signal to sexual activity 123 Socioeconomic context Edit The socioeconomic environment of humans are a context which affect their brain development 124 It has been argued that H sapiens is unsustainable by nature that unsustainability is an inevitable emergent property of his unaltered nature 125 It has also been argued that human nature is not necessarily resulting in unsustainability but is embedded in and affected by a socioeconomic system that is not having an inevitable structure 126 additional citation s needed that the contemporary socioeconomic macrosystem affects human activities 127 A paper published in 1997 concluded that humanity suffer consequences of a poor fit between inherited natures and many of the constructed environments in organizational society 128 Designing a cultural narrative explicitly for living on a finite planet may be suitable for overriding outdated innate tendencies 125 Human nature which some have argued to vary to some extent per individual and in time not be static and at least in the future to some extent be purposely alterable 129 is one of the factors that shape which how and when human activities are conducted The contemporary socioeconomic and collective decision making mechanisms are structures that may affect the expression of human nature for instance innate tendencies to seek survival well being respect and status that some consider fundamental to humans 130 may result in varying product designs types of work public infrastructure designs and the distribution and prevalence of each As with the nature versus nurture debate which is concerned whether or to which degrees human behavior is determined by the environment or by a person s genes scientific research is inconclusive about the degree to which human nature is shaped by and manageable by systemic structures as well as about how and to which degrees these structures can and should be purposely altered swiftly globally See also EditAggressionism Amity enmity complex Common sense Cultural universal Cynicism Dehumanization Diathesis stress model Differential susceptibility hypothesis Emotion Homo sapiens Human condition Humanism Instinct In humans Nature Norm philosophy Norm sociology Normality behavior PsychologyReferences Edit human nature Merriam Webster Dictionary Merriam Webster Inc Retrieved 21 June 2020 Duignan Brian and Emily Rodriguez eds 2009 2018 Human nature Encyclopaedia Britannica human nature Dictionary com Random House Inc 2020 Retrieved 21 June 2020 human nature Cambridge Advanced Learner s Dictionary Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2013 2020 a b c Hannon Elizabeth Lewens Tim eds 2018 07 19 Why We Disagree About Human Nature Oxford Scholarship Online Vol 1 doi 10 1093 oso 9780198823650 001 0001 ISBN 9780198823650 a b c Kronfeldner Maria Roughley Neil Toepfer Georg September 2014 Recent Work on Human Nature Beyond Traditional Essences Philosophy Compass 9 9 642 652 doi 10 1111 phc3 12159 ISSN 1747 9991 a b c Downes Stephen M Machery Edouard eds 2013 Arguing About Human Nature Contemporary Debates London Routledge ISBN 978 0415894401 Ramachandran V S 1996 What neurological syndromes can tell us about human nature some lessons from phantom limbs capgras syndrome and anosognosia Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 61 115 134 doi 10 1101 SQB 1996 061 01 015 ISSN 0091 7451 PMID 9246441 Blank Robert H 2002 Review of Jean Pierre Changeux and Paul Ricoeur 2000 What Makes Us Think A Neuroscientist and Philosopher Argue about Ethics Human Nature and the Brain The American Journal of Bioethics 2 4 69 70 doi 10 1162 152651602320957718 ISSN 1536 0075 PMID 22494253 S2CID 207638942 Fowler James H Schreiber Darren 2008 11 07 Biology politics and the emerging science of human nature Science 322 5903 912 914 Bibcode 2008Sci 322 912F doi 10 1126 science 1158188 ISSN 1095 9203 PMID 18988845 S2CID 206512952 Paulson Steve Berlin Heather A Miller Christian B Shermer Michael 2016 The moral animal virtue vice and human nature Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1384 1 39 56 Bibcode 2016NYASA1384 39P doi 10 1111 nyas 13067 ISSN 1749 6632 PMID 27248691 S2CID 13779050 a b Gilden Hilail ed 1989 Progress or Return In An Introduction to Political Philosophy Ten Essays by Leo Strauss Detroit Wayne State University Press Aristotle Metaphysics 1078b Saunders Jason Lewis 1995 Western Philosophical Schools and Doctrines Ancient and Medieval Schools Sophists Particular Doctrines Theoretical issues Encyclopaedia Britannica Archived from the original on 27 May 2011 Retrieved 7 February 2011 TELEOLOGICAL REALISM IN BIOLOGY www academia edu Retrieved 2016 02 23 permanent dead link Aristotle s Metaphysics Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics I amp VI Plato Republic IV Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics I 1098a Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics VIII 1162a Aristotle Politics 1252a Aristotle Politics 1252b Aristotle Poetics 1148b Newman William Lambert ed 1887 The Politics of Aristotle With an Introduction Two Prefatory Essays and Notes Critical and Explanatory Clarendon Press Pp 189 190 Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics X a b c d Tang Paul C and N Basafa 1988 Human Nature in Chinese Thought A Wittgensteinian Treatment Proceedings of the 12th International Wittgenstein Symposium 1988 International Wittgenstein Symposium Yen Hung Chung 2015 Human Nature and Learning in Ancient China Pp 19 43 in Education as Cultivation in Chinese Culture Singapore Springer Mencius Duke Wen of Teng I 1 quote 孟子道性善 言必稱堯舜 James Legge s translation Mencius discoursed how the nature of man is good and when speaking always made laudatory reference to Yao and Shun a b c d e f g h i Van Norden Bryan 3 December 2014 Mencius The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University a b c d Goldin Paul R 6 July 2018 Xunzi The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University a b c d e f g Wong David 14 September 2018 Chinese Ethics The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Van Norden Bryan 3 December 2014 Mencius The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University amp Wong David 14 September 2018 Chinese Ethics The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University a b Moody Peter R January 2008 Rational Choice Analysis In Classical Chinese Political Thought The Han Feizi Polity 40 1 102 103 doi 10 1057 palgrave polity 2300068 S2CID 143895705 a b c Ivanhoe P J 1994 Human Nature and Moral Understanding in Xunzi International Philosophical Quarterly 34 2 167 175 doi 10 5840 ipq19943421 a b Moody Peter R January 2008 Rational Choice Analysis In Classical Chinese Political Thought The Han Feizi Polity 40 1 104 106 doi 10 1057 palgrave polity 2300068 S2CID 143895705 Xunzi Xing e quote 人之性惡 其善者偽也 Puett Michael J 2001 The Ambivalence of Creation Debates Concerning Innovation and Artifice in Early China Stanford University Press p 65 ISBN 978 0 8047 3623 7 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Pines Yuri 16 November 2018 Legalism in Chinese Philosophy The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University a b c Fu Zhengyuan 1996 China s legalists The earliest totalitarians and their art of ruling M E Sharpe p 82 ISBN 978 1 56324 779 8 Duiker William J Spielvogel Jackson J 2008 12 26 China in Antiquity World History Volume I To 1800 6th ed Wadsworth Cengage p 79 ISBN 978 0 495 56902 2 a b c d e f g Flanagan Owen Hu Jing June 2011 Han Fei Zi s Philosophical Psychology Human Nature Scarcity and the Neo Darwinian Consensus Journal of Chinese Philosophy 38 2 293 316 doi 10 1111 j 1540 6253 2011 01632 x a b c Tulloch John 1876 Christian Doctrine of Sin Armstrong Scribner James William 1902 The Varieties of Religious Experience A Study in Human Nature The Modern Library p 473 Gonzalez Justo L 2005 Anthropology P 8 in Essential Theological Terms Louisville KY Westminster John Knox Press Vanhoozer Kevin J gen ed 2005 Human Being Doctrine of Pp 310 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible Baker Publishing Group Ackerman Kenneth Anthropology and Human Nature 13 PDF Catechism of the Catholic Church IntraText www vatican va Berkhof Louis 1996 Systematic Theology Michigan Eerdmans p 183 Genesis Chapter 1 NIV a b c d e Hoekema Anthony A 1986 Created in God s Image Michigan Eerdmans Vanhoozer Kevin J gen ed 2005 Image of God Pp 318 19 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible Baker Publishing Group Wood James 1813 A Dictionary of the Holy Bible Griffin and Rudd p 34 Jeeves Malcolm 2006 Human Nature Reflections on the Integration of Psychology and Christianity Templeton Press p 115 Psalm 51 5 Romans 7 18 Bible Gateway www biblegateway com Kevin J Vanhoozer gen ed Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible Baker 2005 312 original sin The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English Oxford University Press 2009 Anthony A Hoekema Created in God s Image Eerdmans 1986 152 Louis Berkhof Systematic Theology Eerdmans 1996 246 Calvin John 2 Commentary on Romans Anthony A Hoekema Created in God s Image Eerdmans 1986 158 James Hastings ed A Dictionary of the Bible Pleroma Zuzim C Scribner s Sons 1902 s v Sin 528 534 Bible Gateway passage Romans 5 19 GOD S WORD Translation Bible Gateway Romans 7 18 NIRV I know there is nothing good in my sinful natur Bible Study Tools Sarx New Testament Greek Lexicon New American Standard Bible Study Tools John Tulloch Christian Doctrine of Sin Scribner Armstrong 1876 175 Dawkins Richard 1989 The Selfish Gene 2nd ed Oxford Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 19 286092 7 pp 2 3 Dr Burton White 84 believed children should avoid day care The Boston Globe The Boston Globe White Burton L 1995 Raising a Happy Unspoiled Child rev ed Touchstone pp 98 269 William Graham Sumner 1914 The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays Yale University p 233 What Social Classes Owe to Each Other Harper amp Brothers 1883 Harris Thomas A 1968 2004 I m OK You re OK Quill ed New York HarperCollins p 233 Sober Elliott and David Sloan Wilson 1998 Unto Others The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior Cambridge MA Harvard University Press ISBN 0 674 93046 0 pp 394 Anthony A Hoekema Created in God s Image Eerdmans 1986 187 188 Walter A Elwell ed Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Baker 2001 399 Anthony A Hoekema Created in God s Image Eerdmans 1986 101 Kevin J Vanhoozer gen ed Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible Baker 2005 135 313 Anthony A Hoekema Created in God s Image Eerdmans 1986 21 24 Watson E Mills Roger Aubrey Bullard eds Mercer Dictionary of the Bible Mercer University 1990 741 Bible Gateway passage Romans 12 2 New Revised Standard Version Bible Gateway Colossians Chapter 3 NIV Bible Gateway passage Galatians 5 20 23 Contemporary English Version Bible Gateway Bible Gateway passage Philippians 2 4 New Revised Standard Version Bible Gateway Francis Bacon Novum Organum 1620 www constitution org pp Book II Section II Retrieved 2016 02 23 Hobbes Thomas Leviathan XIII 9 Locke John An Essay Concerning Human Understanding Kenneth P Winkler ed Hackett Publishing Company Indianapolis IN 1996 pp 33 36 Rousseau Jean Jacques The Social Contract Translated by Maurice Cranston Published by Penguin Classics 1968 ISBN 0 14 044201 4 pg 136 Velkley Richard 2002 Being after Rousseau Philosophy and Culture in Question University of Chicago Press Delaney James Rousseau and the Ethics of Virtue Continuum International Publishing Group 2006 ISBN 0 8264 8724 6 pg 49 52 a b An Enquiry into the Sources of Morals Section 5 1 Fuentes Agustin and Aku Visala Conversations on human nature Routledge 2016 a b c d e Hull David L January 1986 On Human Nature PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986 2 3 13 doi 10 1086 psaprocbienmeetp 1986 2 192787 ISSN 0270 8647 S2CID 87471111 Ghiselin Michael T 1997 Metaphysics and the origins of species Albany State University of New York Press Buller David J 2005 Adapting minds Cambridge MA MIT Press a b c d e f g h i Ramsey Grant December 2013 Human Nature in a Post essentialist World Philosophy of Science 80 5 983 993 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 462 7085 doi 10 1086 673902 ISSN 0031 8248 S2CID 146458573 Retrieved 2019 01 21 via ResearchGate a b c d e f g Machery Edouard June 2008 A Plea for Human Nature Philosophical Psychology 21 3 321 329 doi 10 1080 09515080802170119 ISSN 0951 5089 S2CID 145481746 a b c Samuels Richard 2012 Science and Human Nature Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 70 4887 587 588 doi 10 1017 S1358246112000021 PMC 2079588 via PhilPapers Okasha Samir 2002 Darwinian Metaphysics Species and the Question of Essentialism Synthese 131 2 191 213 doi 10 1023 A 1015731831011 S2CID 18233883 a b c Machery Edouard 2018 07 19 Doubling Down on the Nomological Notion of Human Nature Vol 1 Oxford University Press doi 10 1093 oso 9780198823650 003 0002 ISBN 9780191862267 Fuentes A and Visala A 2016 Conversations on human nature Routledge Geertz Clifford 1973 The Interpretation of Cultures New York Basic Books p 44 a b c d e f Bostrom Nick 2005 In Defense of Posthuman Dignity Bioethics 19 3 202 14 doi 10 1111 j 1467 8519 2005 00437 x PMID 16167401 a b c d Buchanan Allen 2009 Human nature and enhancement Bioethics 23 3 141 150 doi 10 1111 j 1467 8519 2008 00633 x PMID 19161567 S2CID 35039986 Habermas Jurgen 2003 The Future of Human Nature Kass Leon 2003 Happy Souls Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Perfection The New Atlantis 1 Fukuyama Francis 2002 Our Posthuman Future Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution New York Farrar Straus and Giroux G Annas L Andrews and R Isasi 2002 Protecting the Endangered Human Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations American Journal of Law and Medicine 28 2 3 162 doi 10 1017 S009885880001162X PMID 12197461 S2CID 233430956 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a CS1 maint uses authors parameter link Kass Leon 2002 Life Liberty and Defense of Dignity The Challenge for Bioethics San Francisco Encounter Books Habermas Jurgen 2003 The Future of Human Nature pp 60 66 Lewens Tim 2012 Human Nature The Very Idea Philosophy amp Technology 25 4 459 474 doi 10 1007 s13347 012 0063 x S2CID 145176095 Ramsey Grant 2012 How Human Nature Can Inform Human Enhancement a Commentary on Tim Lewens s Human Nature the Very Idea Philosophy and Technology 25 4 479 483 doi 10 1007 s13347 012 0087 2 S2CID 144064640 Bostrom Nick June 2005 In Defense of Posthuman Dignity Bioethics 19 3 202 214 doi 10 1111 j 1467 8519 2005 00437 x ISSN 0269 9702 PMID 16167401 Caplan Arthur L 2005 07 01 Death as an unnatural process Why is it wrong to seek a cure for ageing EMBO Reports 6 S1 S72 S75 doi 10 1038 sj embor 7400435 ISSN 1469 221X PMC 1369280 PMID 15995668 Ridley Matt 2003 The Red Queen Sex And The Evolution of Human Nature Perennial p 4 ISBN 0060556579 Hoehl Stefanie Hellmer Kahl Johansson Maria Gredeback Gustaf 2017 Itsy Bitsy Spider Infants React with Increased Arousal to Spiders and Snakes Frontiers in Psychology 8 1710 doi 10 3389 fpsyg 2017 01710 PMC 5651927 PMID 29093687 Bornstein Marc H Putnick Diane L Rigo Paola Esposito Gianluca Swain James E Suwalsky Joan T D Su Xueyun Du Xiaoxia Zhang Kaihua Cote Linda R De Pisapia Nicola Venuti Paola 2017 Neurobiology of culturally common maternal responses to infant cry Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 45 E9465 E9473 doi 10 1073 pnas 1712022114 PMC 5692572 PMID 29078366 Haun Daniel B M Rekers Yvonne Tomasello Michael 2012 Majority Biased Transmission in Chimpanzees and Human Children but Not Orangutans Current Biology 22 8 727 731 doi 10 1016 j cub 2012 03 006 PMID 22503497 Curtis Valerie Aunger Robert deBarra Micheal 2011 Disgust as an adaptive system for disease avoidance behaviour Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366 1563 389 401 doi 10 1098 rstb 2010 0117 PMC 3013466 PMID 21199843 Weierstall Roland Moran James Giebel Gilda Elbert Thomas 2014 Testosterone reactivity and identification with a perpetrator or a victim in a story are associated with attraction to violence related cues International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 37 3 304 312 doi 10 1016 j ijlp 2013 11 016 PMID 24367977 Gettler L T McDade T W Feranil A B Kuzawa C W 2011 Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 39 16194 16199 doi 10 1073 pnas 1105403108 PMC 3182719 PMID 21911391 Grebe Nicholas M Sarafin Ruth E Strenth Chance R Zilioli Samuele 2019 Pair bonding fatherhood and the role of testosterone A meta analytic review Neuroscience amp Biobehavioral Reviews 98 221 233 doi 10 1016 j neubiorev 2019 01 010 PMID 30639674 S2CID 58635068 Dabbs J M Frady R L Carr T S Besch N F 1987 Saliva testosterone and criminal violence in young adult prison inmates Psychosomatic Medicine 49 2 174 182 doi 10 1097 00006842 198703000 00007 PMID 3575604 S2CID 39757740 Dabbs James Hargrove Marian F 1997 Age Testosterone and Behavior Among Female Prison Inmates Psychosomatic Medicine 59 5 477 480 doi 10 1097 00006842 199709000 00003 PMID 9316179 S2CID 19900226 Goetz Stefan M M Tang Lingfei Thomason Moriah E Diamond Michael P Hariri Ahmad R Carre Justin M 2014 Testosterone Rapidly Increases Neural Reactivity to Threat in Healthy Men A Novel Two Step Pharmacological Challenge Paradigm Biological Psychiatry 76 4 324 331 doi 10 1016 j biopsych 2014 01 016 PMC 9552187 PMID 24576686 S2CID 23764095 Miller Saul L Maner Jon K 2010 Scent of a Woman Psychological Science 21 2 276 283 doi 10 1177 0956797609357733 PMID 20424057 S2CID 18170407 Hackman Daniel A Farah Martha J Meaney Michael J September 2010 Socioeconomic status and the brain mechanistic insights from human and animal research Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11 9 651 659 doi 10 1038 nrn2897 ISSN 1471 0048 PMC 2950073 PMID 20725096 a b Rees William 1 October 2010 What s blocking sustainability Human nature cognition and denial Sustainability Science Practice and Policy 6 2 13 25 doi 10 1080 15487733 2010 11908046 Human Nature and Capitalism AEI American Enterprise Institute AEI Retrieved 16 April 2021 Tromboni Flavia Liu Jianguo Ziaco Emanuele Breshears David D Thompson Kimberly L Dodds Walter K Dahlin Kyla M LaRue Elizabeth A Thorp James H Vina Andres Lague Marysa M Maasri Alain Yang Hongbo Chandra Sudeep Fei Songlin 2021 Macrosystems as metacoupled human and natural systems Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 19 1 20 29 doi 10 1002 fee 2289 ISSN 1540 9309 Nicholson Nigel 1 September 1997 Evolutionary Psychology Toward a New View of Human Nature and Organizational Society Human Relations 50 9 1053 1078 doi 10 1023 A 1016937216809 ISSN 1573 9716 S2CID 189782635 Retrieved 16 April 2021 Buchanan Allen 2009 Human Nature and Enhancement Bioethics 23 3 141 150 doi 10 1111 j 1467 8519 2008 00633 x ISSN 1467 8519 PMID 19161567 S2CID 35039986 Retrieved 16 April 2021 Anderson Cameron Hildreth John Angus D Howland Laura 2015 Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive A review of the empirical literature Psychological Bulletin 141 3 574 601 doi 10 1037 a0038781 PMID 25774679 Further reading EditBregman Rutger 2020 Humankind A Hopeful History Translated by Moore Erica Manton Elizabeth Little Brown and Company ISBN 978 0316418539 Pinker Steven 2011 The Better Angels of Our Nature Why Violence Has Declined Viking Books ISBN 978 0 670 02295 3 External links Edit Wikiquote has quotations related to Human nature Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Human nature amp oldid 1143495804, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.