Angels & Demons

The dichotomous nature of human existence is thus that two irreconcilable entities fight for dominance ; the depiction of the “angel” and the “devil” within the conscience serves as a common visual that symbolizes what comprises our human nature. It highlights that us humans have the capacity for both good, and evil and by extension raises the question : is our human nature fundamentally virtuous, malign or an amalgamation? Human nature is the fundamental dispositions and characteristics (including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting) that all humans are thought to possess inherently. Whilst science is able to give us a more corporeal analysis of what it means to be human, it is only through philosophy in which we can contemplate and reason what exists within us intangibly that causes us to act the way that we do. Although philosophy by no means will give us a “correct” answer to this question, it can encourage critical discourse and analysis into complex existential questions that could shed light onto whether or not we are more similar than what science can feasibly explain. Human nature is a critical issue because it is concerned with the way we perceive other humans, societies, and cultures and the way that we interact with them. In an increasingly interconnected world, we ought to continually question what we ‘know’ about other humans, and perhaps more eerily, what we do not. 

The English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes posits the idea that our egoism is what it means to be human. He posits that the primary motivation of humans is self interest : the drive to preserve our existence and seek our own advantage. We are nature driven to pursue our individual ends and will therefore seek advantage over others at any chance we get. He argues that in a world of limited resources we are forced into competition ; the ability of others to cause us harm provokes insecurity in us and therefore we pursue power and glory to make us more secure. In other words, “the motion of mankind is a perpetual and restless desire for power after power that ceases only in death”. Hence in the conflict that naturally arises from our quest for what he calls ‘felicity’ (the mental pleasures that arise from anticipating the satisfaction of one's desires), we know that we might get killed if we thwart the ambition of a competitor. In short we reach Hobbes’ conclusion that being in a constant state of war is what it means to be human. This premise is extremely compelling. In a society that places us in a hierarchy based on wealth, income and general standard of living we have to compete in almost every sector of life : starting with academics for admissions into selective universities, to being employed for highly sought after jobs and even to purchasing property/exclusive commodities etc. This inevitably means you have to outrank your competitors to live the desired “comfortable” life hence a constant state of conflict. On the other hand, an objector might think that this is far too negative. After all, surely we are not competing with our friends nor our family and are supportive of them and their successes? Marginally. I would argue we are supportive of family because they pose no inherent threat to us ; they exist as a support network. Further I would argue that we are only truly “friends” with those who we believe to pose no immediate threat to us in our most sought after goal. If a person posed a risk of outcompeting you for your one true desire, I sincerely doubt that they would be your friend at all (rather, a competitor.) ; if they were your friend before the risk became apparent I would argue self - interests corrupts this relationship into one that is pernicious, competitive and eventually non existent. Hence self interest and ambition are humanity’s greatest driving factor and the desire to outcompete those who pose a threat to our felicity is what it means to be human.

The Genevan Philosopher Jean - Jacques Rousseau however, posits the idea that humans have the capacity for virtue and are noble. Indeed his idea of “natural goodness' suggests that humans are naturally compassionate in their state of nature. He argued that in their original, uncorrupted state, humans are born with a sense of compassion and empathy for one another. This natural goodness is rooted in their capacity for empathy and the ability to form emotional connections with others. He believed that the concept of Pitié directs us to attend to and relieve the suffering of others (including animals). This is indeed an optimistic concept but consider the second clause to his theory : only where we can do so without danger to our own self-preservation. Clearly self interest has manifested itself back into the equation. It is in our own self interest to live life without harm to us hence we will only help others when it suits our own needs primarily. Hence how can nobility be what it means to be human? Clearly we are not as selfless as we would like to believe. On the other hand, we do have the right and the liberty to life ; to some degree should we not all prioritize ourselves? Undoubtedly. However, this does not deny the fact that it is in our human nature to act out of self interest when perhaps it is most necessary, as often in situations that cause the most suffering e.g. war/conflict, we refuse to interfere due to our thirst for self preservation. Rousseau did , however, claim that the corrupting influence of society and civilization led to the deterioration of natural goodness. He argued that as people formed more complex societies, they became subject to social hierarchies, private property, and competition for resources. This, in turn, fostered inequality, greed, and conflict. Indeed Rousseau famously stated, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains," highlighting the idea that societally imposed restrictions on human freedom have indeed flawed their natural goodness. 

Clearly both philosophers are in agreement that humans in practice (living in civilization), are perhaps not virtuous due to the extraneous challenges society brings such as wealth, inequity etc. but where they fundamentally differ is where the blame must be placed for said challenges. Whilst Hobbes argues it is due to malign human nature (which is indeed innate), Rousseau argues that human nature is innately virtuous but corrupted by our surroundings. As aforementioned Rousseau believes it to be specifically “the corrupting influence of society and civilization” as well as “social hierarchies”.  But is that not a protracted term for “other humans”? Hierarchies are a social construct built by humans in order to preserve their elitist tendencies ; competition for resources stems from prioritizing self preservation and private property is based on the human construction of capitalism. Essentially what Rousseau is therefore saying is we are being corrupted by other humans : paradoxical indeed. Does this  not reinforce Hobbes’ idea that we are indeed innately depraved in the sense that we are all selfish, self motivated, insecure and jealous entities and our projection of these qualities onto others is what causes a corrupted civilisation? Perhaps then Hobbes makes a compelling point ; that the life of man is truly “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.