Mankind — Doomed From Birth or Hope in Life

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Man¹ is a born sinner, there is a fundamental evil in man that makes him stand up to God, and try to mimic Him and His omnipresence. It is this desire to rise and reach the heights that man sins.

To sin is to do something forbidden, something evil and unjust which needs salvation, in Christian text there is a very clear black and white fight between good and evil, good being God and man being the essential sinner. This is an enduring war and Luther asks the question unequivocally in his book Bondage of will:

Since [God and the world] are at war with each other, how can there be anything else throughout the whole world but uproar.(94)

He cites Jesus who said:

I am come not to send peace but a sword” (cited in Luther, 94 (Matthew 10:34))

To Luther salvation of mankind was the most important issue and to him Jesus did not come in peace but to wage a war, to save the mankind from their own collective moral degradation, corruptness and ignoble presence. Luther believed that no one had appreciated Jesus’ words and instead were interested in peace rather than waging war against forces of evil embodied in man himself. Luther’s belief in the original evilness of mankind is a fact rather than a conjecture, to him it stands out as something so evident that sacrificing lives of individuals is insignificant compared to eternal salvation—the ultimate aim of any Christian.

Much before Luther set forth to reform the Catholic Church, St. Augustine is one of the most important individuals who created the framework of Western Christian Church in the early middle ages. He is the person who defined man as the original sinner and separated the material world of man from the spiritual house of God. His confessions – an autobiography describes his own evilness:

Our only pleasure in doing it was that it was forbidden..The malice of the act was base and I loved it-that is to say I loved my own undoing, I loved the evil in me-not the thing for which I did the evil..What was it that attracted me in that theft?….The sin sweetened it..[It was] the delight a prisoner might have in making some small gesture of liberty-getting a deceptive sense of omnipotence from doing something forbidden without immediate punishment..[Finding] pleasure only in what was forbidden, and only because it was forbidden.(1119-20)

Luther’s observations were very broad and not as explicit as St. Augustine, in whose view from the time of infancy evil intentions are clear as his own demands were such that his parents had to submit to them. St. Augustine is extremely critical of mankind’s struggle to deal with inbuilt shortcomings and at the same time the idea of man to show a false omnipotence.

To him it is the notion of deriving pleasure from forbidden just because of the fact that it is forbidden is what makes people act immorally. To him this is a reflection of the sinful soul of man which indulges in different immoral and wicked thoughts and actions from the time of infancy.

The ingrained and deeply visceral desire of man to go after forbidden things is something very natural, it is from within and this is the reason why Rabelais the controversial French Humanist claims that people belonging to upper-classes are forced to be honorable; in the presence of others like them, but if their circumstances change or are in any way “oppressed or enslaved” then they tend to show their real predisposition.

Rabelais’ Christian beliefs stand out as he shows that material wealth and standing is necessary for man to be complacent, but any kind of subjugation and denial of needs makes them act as their true self:

if they are subjected to vile constraints, brought down to a lower moral level, oppressed and enslaved and turned away from that noble passion toward which virtue pulls them, find themselves led by that same passion to throw off and break any such bondage, just as we always seek out forbidden things and long for whatever is denied us.(2161-2)

This indicates an inherent immorality which may not be visible in the more well-to-do but is an intrinsic part of man’s very existence. And as soon as he or she believes something to be forbidden he or she immediately tries to reach for it or struggles to possess it. Rabelais is thus not as constricted in his approach as St. Augustine, but is a believer in immoral behavior of men.

Machiavelli is as convinced about the wickedness of men as St. Augustine, although he believes that the malice and immorality of man makes him not only lying, deceiving and conniving individuals but in an environment where a majority of mankind is ready to cheat and be devious the people who may be good are losers, as they are exceptions and their uprightness and truth doesn’t stand a chance against general prevalent wickedness:

Anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not good. (1954)

Machiavelli although admits that he may have been wrong if all men had been good, but the reality is on the contrary calling them:

Men generally are ungrateful, mutable, pretenders and dissemblers, prone to avoid danger, thirsty for gain..Men forget the death of a father more quickly than the loss of their patrimony. (1955)

Although some people argue that Machiavelli ignores church, but other recent readings indicate that he submits to the fundamental teachings of Church. But whatever might be the case Machiavelli’s description of men and their wickedness is caricatured in black humor as he points to the materialistic extreme when paternal love takes a backseat to worldly passion as loss of father is inconsequential to the loss of inheritance. He is more practical when he states that in the absence of any kind of truth it is better to be wicked then to be a good man.

Dostoyevsky on the other hand is convinced about man’s nature—spiteful, unkind, uncontrollable, irrational and perpetually dissatisfied. But he is more interested in the self-destructive behavior which he believes is the cornerstone of man’s state. In his satirical analysis man has the ingenious quality of what he calls “fatal fantastic element” (8), the perverseness which is an inclination to “contrive” suffering, destruction and chaos. In his view man seeks out suffering, instead of looking for happiness, the spite which is an integral part of humans makes them self-destruct:

A man’s advantage sometimes must consist in his desiring in certain cases that is harmful to himself and not advantageous…Out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. (16)

This by any measure is no mean feat, in his sarcasm Dostoyevsky’s sardonic tone says that all this self-inflicted punishment because of pure spite and maliciousness is just what man is looking for —–maybe according to him—humans may be benefiting in some way from this suffering, and maybe this suffering is as good for them as their well-being. However one cannot just ignore this as an inherent quirkiness, rather it is more like fault which drives people to their doom. In his view it’s more an internal struggle rather a consequence of external impetus.

At this point a question arises, is mankind an epitome of wickedness and irrationality, so much so that man in any state tends to show his spite and immoral behavior. Moreover human weakness and failing is so overpowering that it eclipses all that may be considered good. But who will decide what actually is good and whether man is capable of overcoming these shortcomings and rising above the intrinsic spite, maliciousness and corruptness.

Being upright, principled and truthful, standing up for right and in any circumstances ignoring the baser evil can counter these internal shortcomings. Instead of a constant struggle to fight and seek the forbidden and denied, is it possible for humans to demonstrate qualities to rise above all that holds him down?

The views diverge for some of the above mentioned writers, while St. Augustine and Luther profess to salvation by turning towards religion, Machiavelli is more inclined to believe that man’s state cannot be changed and every individual has to think independently and for his own well-being where all men are fundamentally “wicked” and each individual has to struggle to find his own place.

Rabelais believes that external conditions can have greater impact on man’s behavior; favorable conditions may lead to a more acceptable behavior while bondage and suppression can have adverse impact. While Dostoyevsky is not very optimistic, because in his opinion man creates his own problems and sufferings and in a perverse way enjoys the misery, perhaps more than well-being.

But there can be another side to this kind of argument, for instance Galileo is concerned that there is a difference between ignorance and knowledge. Ignorance on one hand pushes man towards moral depravity and public pronouncements which may illustrate their personal shortcomings. Galileo states:

Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while, on the other hand, to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment on anything new.(256)

Here Galileo is differentiating between men, instead of labeling and stereotyping the whole mankind as being evil or irrational or beyond salvation, Galileo divides humans into those who struggle to analyze and learn from their surroundings and those who have no understanding of different thoughts and who are ignorant.

The former because of the burden of what they know and their understanding of the workings of the world become careful with empathy towards their surroundings, they are also aware of what is happening therefore they are not as reckless as the latter category. The Ignorant are the ones who tend to behave irrationally, who are full of themselves even though they know very little.

Lumping all Individuals under a preconceived idea of what humanity is would be incorrect, if Galileo’s approach is followed. Change in Individuals occurs because of the degree of understanding and knowledge they demonstrate and it is the burden of understanding and awareness of the universal truths that makes individuals more non-judgmental.

Voltaire is more vocal and his words are clearer when he counters the claims, he states that human nature is considered:

Essentially perverse, that man is born the child of the devil, and is wicked. Mankind is nothing but an assembly of monsters, and every time you must feel sure that they will rob and murder you, for they are the children of the devil..Nothing is more ill considered. (298)

Voltaire vociferously criticizes the universal damning of mankind, here he may be up against the Western Christian interpretation of human existence, where all humans are considered originally flawed, who are ready to do their worst and completely depraved. His belief is very evident when he points out that Children are born pure and innocent, there is nothing wicked about them. It is only a very small minority in Voltaire’s opinion who think that children are sinful.

And this kind of warped thinking has been used by a few individuals who control mankind. Children’s innocence can be felt as they don’t display any evil behavior. Depravity of thought, Irrationality and immorality are only present in a few individuals. It is not a collective mindset, rather Voltaire says:

Then why are some of them infected by this plague of wickedness? Because their leaders, infected by the disease, communicate it to the rest of mankind. (299)

So it’s actually the responsibility of a few who infect the mind of the masses and make them believe in imagined conjectures and assumptions which have no basis whatsoever. Enlightenment is reflected in his words as he strives to counter centuries of accepted paradigm about fallibility of mankind and the preordained evilness of man.

Even when declaring innocence of mankind Voltaire has to admit that man does has a propensity to be led astray and also capable of extreme measures and thoughts. This is very clearly portrayed by Capek in his play Rossum’s Universal Robots, who had deep misgivings about man’s tendency to use industrialization and other scientific inventions and progress to act as superior being; he foresaw the influence of large corporations:

I wanted nothing, nothing, and nothing to be left of this appalling social structure. I’m revolted by poverty. I wanted a new generation. I wanted to turn the whole of mankind into an aristocracy of the world.(40)

Capek is fearful of socialistic tendency and dictatorial regimes in the name of mankind’s superiority over other beings and primarily over nature. Where Voltaire strives to break out of preconceived paradigm of mankind’s collective sins and evilness, Capek’s concerns are more to do with liberties taken by men especially a few while other humans and nature suffers at their expense.

It is now evident that the collective weakness and immorality which has been lamented for centuries is not actually a depravity, a quirk or an intrinsic tendency, there is nothing predetermined about mankind’s fate, as Galileo rightly points out that the difference between good and evil is rather a difference between awareness and ignorance.

Voltaire’s defense also absolves man of any natural deviousness, but Capek’s warning can also not be ignored as time and again mankind has been witness to totalitarianism, and we cannot deny the existence of people like Hitler or even the genocide in Burundi and Rwanda. But here it is important to understand and appreciate the difference between an individual and his decisions and a collective thought which is either imposed or assimilated and accepted by the masses like the theory of man as a born sinner.

But when we look at man— an individual—the essence of mankind is reflected in him. There is nothing clear-cut or black and white about man, rather there are innumerable shades of grey.

Mankind is neither wicked, depraved nor are all humans weak, there are so many facets to an individual’s personality which are simultaneously contradictory, and even awareness and knowledge do make a difference but the choice is ultimately mans as there are evil geniuses as well as illiterates who have the ability to discern. According to the French Renaissance philosopher Montaigne:

All contradictions may be found in me by some twist and in some fashion. Bashful, insolent; chaste, lascivious; talkative, taciturn; tough, delicate; clever, stupid; surly, affable; lying, truthful; learned, ignorant; liberal, miserly, and prodigal: all this I see in myself to some extent according to how I turn; and whoever studies. Himself really attentively finds in himself, yes, even in his judgment, this gyration and discord. I have nothing to say about myself absolutely, simply, and solidly, without confusion and without mixture, or in one word.(2202)

Montaigne’s understanding is the most appropriate; he believes that human tendencies and man’s nature cannot be understood from one paradigm or an absolute perspective. Man is a bundle of contradictions, in many ways this creates a kind of conflict but in other instances these qualities complement each other. Montaigne also feels that these attitudes and behaviors change with conditions and situations that man has to deal with.

The most significant issue is the role of environment, and how it plays a pivotal role in determining the behavior of man, most of the philosophies mentioned here pointed to the inborn tendency towards evil in mankind. But they ignore the fact that it is the state of man’s existence which determines to a large extent how an individual behaves.

Passing a collective judgment on mankind and its inherent fallibility is too sweeping, critical and narrow as opposed to a balanced view. Even Machiavelli and Dostoyevsky do not reflect conventional Christian philosophy but their ideas do have an underlying Western Christian approach.

There is no universal law which can be applied to mankind, man is a kaleidoscope of changing patterns and different angles strange unpredictable behaviors. The divergence of thought is visible even though all these views are from western thought process, and there is a clear possibility that other value systems, cultures and societies interpretations about man and mankind may vary. Therefore man’s judgment and understanding about himself and all the ideas are relative in an existence which cannot be nailed down in absolutes.

Works Cited

Capek, Karel. R.U.R. 1920.

Dostoyevski, Fidor M. Notes from Underground. 1864.

Galileo, Galilei. Letter written to Don Virginio Cesarini from Galileo Galilei. 1621.

Luther, Martin. Bondage of Will. 1525.

Maciavelli, Niccolo. Prince. 1513.

Montaigne, Michel De. Complete Essays. 1580.

Rabelais, Francois. Gargantua and Pantagruel. 1532-1552.

St. Augustine. Confessions. 397.

Voltaire. A Philosophical Dictionary: Wicked. 1764.

Footnotes

This paper uses man and masculine reference as universal without limiting the essay to one single gender or ignoring female sex.

Click Here To Order Now!

Mankind — Doomed From Birth or Hope in Life

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)