Category: Human Nature

The debate over the base nature of humanity has lasted centuries, creating many theories and counterpoints to those theories, yet none have been definitively established as the correct essence of humanity in a state of nature nor has a correct reason been pinpointed for why humanity decides to enter into social contracts. Are humans predisposed to violence and it is only for our benefit that we give up our freedom to preserve our own lives? Or is our nature closer to the belief that although we are given the freedom of all actions, humanity is guided by the law of reason. Popular stances include the theories of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, and many more. In this essay, I will be focusing on the theory of base nature and social contract as presented by John Locke and how his reasons and explanations – when compared to those of his colleague Thomas Hobbes – ultimately appear to be the truest analysis of humanity.

John Locke begins his theory by separating the state of nature from the state of war. He begins the second chapter of his Second Treatise of Government by defining the state of nature as “…a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons… without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Morgan 2011, 713) and further defines it as “A state also of equality, wherein all the power a jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another…” (713). These definitions provide insight into humanity in its simplest terms, a species of beings not necessarily collectively at peace with one another, as Locke discusses later on, but one that affords all liberties to each member of the population without approval nor guidance from his fellow man nor the restrictions of laws from a societal construct. The state of nature, according to Locke, is governed by one law as he states, “And reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (713). It is this difference that separates not only Locke’s state of nature from the state of war, but also in doing so, makes an important differentiation from Hobbes.

Locke states that the state of war is a state of lack of reason and applies as a contract between individuals rather than over an entire population. The state of war may be entered and exited at will of the perpetrator and it is during the state of war that the victim is allowed to prosecute the aggressor to the degree he believes appropriate. It is the want to avoid the state of war that gives a reason to enter into a social contract, Locke states “For where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power” (717). It is also in part because the uncertainty of life in the state of nature – due to members that lack reason – that individuals decide to enter into a social contract. For although in the state of nature man is free to do as he pleases within reason, the risk that unreasonable individuals present in impeding the enjoyment of that freedom is too great of a trade to properly and fully enjoy that freedom. As Locke states in chapter nine of his Second Treatise of Government, “…and it is not without reason, that he [the individual] seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others … for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and … property” (744-745).

Contrastingly, Hobbes’ view on the state of nature emphasizes the problems within humanity much more than Locke. Although both share the idea that man is free to do as he please, in Hobbes’ natural state, humanity is in a continual state of war of all against all, to which Hobbes further details as follows: “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Morgan 2011, 619), of which the aforementioned causes lead to an undesirable condition described in chapter 13 of Leviathan as follows: “…and which is worst of all [in the state of war], continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (619). Rather than driven to society by reasoning, humanity, according to Hobbes, lacks all reason and forges the social contract out of a perpetual fear for their safety.

On Hobbes’ many laws of nature, 19 in total, are decidedly opposite of the assertion previously made that the nature of man is that of a state of constant war. For example, the first law states “that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war” while laws 10 through 19 are the subject of judgements and possession that are only available in society.

After consideration for both theories, I conclude it is John Locke’s theory of man and society that is truest to life. Firstly, I believe it is a misconception to believe that man is without reason and that it is natural for all of man to want war all the time. While there will always be people whom desire violent or selfish acts, it is seen more often than not that the general populace pulls together during events that result in a chaotic state. Therefore, it makes more sense to assume that humanity is capable of reasonable thought most of the time. Secondly, the reason for forging a social contract and the position of power within that contract also fall in line with Locke’s way of thinking. If humanity is willing and capable of overturning an ineffective government – and humanity has done so many times – then that shows a willingness to return, temporarily, to the state of nature in order to reconvene with a better social contract. If humanity was to forge the social contract primarily out of fear, and is unwilling or unable to leave that contract because the state of nature is so horrible a tyrant is preferable, then there would not be uprisings, there would only be an uneasy complacency.

Looking to governments around the world today, I have observed at least three government constitutions (Davis, Debré, US Const.) that allow for the revolution of the people should the government fail as well as an international document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which ascertains that it is the people’s right to rebel against an ineffective or tyrannical government because the social contract is ultimately a contract in which the people have the power (United Nations para. 3, 1948). Humanity does not fear the return to the state of nature. It is not an ideal state; however, if it is deemed that the current government’s primary interest is not that of its citizens with whom it made the contract, then they will simply search for a new one that will.

Proponents of Hobbes’ line of thought will point to the many instances throughout history of “revolution”, or more accurately labelled “rebellion” showing that humanity as a whole, cannot be trusted to govern itself, as there are far too many whom believe his idea better than the government and will fight for it. This thus proves man’s natural tendency to violence, especially in the name of self-gain. For instance, the American civil war: in which a group of individuals wished to end their social contract with the government so that they could profit from their actions of owning slaves, or the June 1832 Rebellion: in which French citizens rebelled against the monarchy due to the rising taxes in an attempt to stabilize the economy. For the latter, it is important to note that a government must be strong to protect its citizens and it is the citizens’ fault for the devastation of cholera that followed this time; had the government been strong and not fighting its citizens, more resources could have been diverted to managing the outbreak. It is also important to note that rebellion naturally leads to chaos, and it is this period that is closest to what nature would look like.

Furthermore, there had never been a time known to the history of man in which man was lawless and outside of government. Looking as far back as the Neanderthal times, man lived in tribes in which there was a single member chosen as the sovereign to guide and rule over the collective. If even in such a basic time, man was driven to society it shows that the state of nature truly is a terrifying and undesirable state.

To this I bring my argument to a different corner. Reflecting Hobbes’ statement of natural life being “solitary” I disagree. There have been multiple studies and articles researching the psychology of humankind, all of which found that humanity is a naturally social species (Young 2008). Therefore, even going to the Neanderthals and before, humanity tended to live in groups for the same reasons the wolf lives in packs or the orca lives in pods.

It is important to note that Locke is not in support of all rebellion, simply of revolution against a government which has stopped serving its people: “…whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people…” (Morgan 2011, 769). While I am not of the opinion that slavery is moral nor legal, it was the opinion of the southern states that their “property” was being taken away from them and therefore falls under Locke’s definition of an acceptable reason for revolution.

Similarly, if one is to consider the argument of rebellion, one must look at revolution – which is merely a successful rebellion – to determine the reasons for entering a state of war with the government. The American Revolution, named the American Rebellion by the British, falls under the category of justifiable since the British government had stopped serving the interests of the American people. Furthermore, although revolutions usually resort to violent acts, there have been instances of nonviolent revolution – such as the Mongolian Revolution of 1990. It is because of these aforementioned reasons that Locke’s theory, used as a basis for many governments today, is truest to the nature of humanity.

Bibliography

1. Davis, G.R.C., trans. Magna Carta, Magna Carta § (1215). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_Kingdom_2013.
2. Debré, Michel, and Charles de Gaulle. Constitution de la République française. Translated by William Pickles, Constitution de la République française § (1958). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/France_2008.
3. Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 5th ed., 578–710. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.
4. Locke, John. “Second Treatise of Government.” In Classics of Moral and Political Theory, edited by Michael L. Morgan, 5th ed., 711–76. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2011.
5. United States Constitution, United States Constitution § (1789). https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992?lang=en.
6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights § (1948). https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
7. Young, Simon N. “The Neurobiology of Human Social Behaviour: An Important but Neglected Topic.” National Center for Biotechnology Information. National Library of Medicine, September 2008. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527715/.

The literary masterpiece of William Golding, Lord of the Flies, gives a deep insight into human nature, unrestricted by the conventions of a civil society. Golding suggests that the more humankind dissociates itself from society and its morals, the more they are drawn towards barbarity, their true nature. Throughout the novel he tries to convey his fundamental assertion that humans possess innate savagery and are driven by urges towards power and dominance over others. The range of literary devices such as: characterisation, symbolism and strong character development, illustrates that all humans are inherently evil and are susceptible to lose their sense of humanity once exposed to dire conditions. This is demonstrated through actions of the notorious Jack Merridew, the imaginary beast and the group of savages in Jack’s tribe.

More often than not, the personality that may come across as amiable and trustworthy conceals his true identity and only displays it to impress someone or prove themselves. This is the case with Ralph. He is, for the most part, a good person and leader. However, he is not flawless. His interactions with Piggy unfold his inability to be constantly on top of his thoughts, actions, urges to impress and entertain on another’s behalf. Despite generally standing up for Piggy, Ralph does not miss an opportunity to humiliate or degrade him in front of the other boys. At the beginning of the novel, upon hearing the name ‘Piggy’ he bursts into laughter and starts teasing him about it. Piggy makes him promise that if they were to come across any other boys he wouldn’t disclose that deriding nickname, but Ralph goes chanting it around in a mocking manner. Moreover, when Jack calls him Fatty, Ralph corrects him, saying his name is Piggy. He then apologises saying, “Better Piggy than Fatty”. Throughout the novel, he invariably excludes Piggy from thrilling activities justifying it by his inability to undertake them. Apparently, in that small community of boys no one had the courage to stand up against humiliating one of them. Or was it the beginning of their dehumanization?

More prominently, the development of Jack as an antagonist, is just one of Golding’s means to unfold his idea that human beings are savages by nature. Jack immediately establishes his desire for power from the beginning of the novel and becomes furious over the fact that he was not chosen for the role of chief. For a while, the morals and disciplines, that society has managed to instill in him, linger. ‘We’ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we’re not savages,’’ says Jack. But soon after, the makeshift civilisation collapses under the weight of his and the other boy’s instinctive savagery. During his first encounter with a pig, he is unable to kill it as the “enormity of the knife descending and cutting living flesh” was too overwhelming for him. After such humiliation, he devotes his time to hunting and tries to kill the pig, slowly drifting towards barbarity and finding pleasure in killing pigs. With time, his behaviour begins to influence the whole group, resulting in the brutal murder of Simon, the first character to realise that barbarism has descended in their midst and it is just part of human nature. Ralph, a symbol of order and civility, as opposed to Jack, also participates in Simon’s murder, thereby testifying that all humans turn to evil in some circumstances. With the progression of the novel, Jack, representing unfiltered human nature undergoes a transformation from a civilized school boy to a symbol of savagery and anarchy in an environment where there are no rules and order.

The imaginary beast is another symbol that Golding uses Lord of the Flies. Almost all the boys are terrified of the beast, and as they regress further into savagery their fear of the beast intensifies. Irrational fear is directly linked to the inability to process the facts of truth and see the reality as it is. The more afraid they are, the more evident becomes their lack of reasoning and common sense. The only boy that ever found out the truth about the beast was Simon, after discovering a dead parachutist whose body would rise and fall with the wind as if alive, and later coming across the ‘Lord of the Flies’ which tells him that the real beast is lurking within them all. But Simon’s dim guess was clear from the beginning, ‘What I mean is… Maybe it’s only us…’ he kept telling the others without much approval on their part. The tragic death of Simon is Golding’s way of communicating the thought that the closer humanity gets to understanding the truth about themselves, the surer the answers slip out of their grip due to the pure ignorance and close-mindedness of theirs. Golding’s implementation of the beast in the boys’ adventure on the island symbolises an irrational fear among the boys and their incapacity to rationally analyse their bogeys.

Finally, the end of the book displays just how much things have changed and how quickly humans can be led away from reason towards savagery in absence of constraints of society. Their actions prove that crude human nature is animal-like. They could successfully survive by hunting and consuming their kill, if it weren’t that thrill of killing creatures, incommensurate in their power to defend themselves with the humans power to kill, took the best part of them. The group chants ‘Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Bash her in…’ which exhibits the savagery that the group has been devoured by. As the boys turn to a murderous existence towards the end of the book, they cease to be called boys, but simply ‘savages’. The novel reflects on Golding’s belief that people of all age groups have innate capacity for evil and that this natural capacity is never too far from a civilized society. He believes that evil comes from within you and is part of you, but is suppressed by society.

For as long as human beings have been able to think, they’ve had the desire to understand the truths of life. In ‘The Allegory of the Cave’, when referring to these desires Plato states, “God knows whether it is true”. When trying to answer many of life’s questions people usually have conflicting views that can never be proven true. Which makes you wonder, is truth even meant for humans to understand? It has been proven time and time again throughout history that truth is an extremely powerful thing. We’ve been told the power of truth since we were children, to always be truthful and always try to find yours. However realistically, most people don’t live their everyday life knowingly on a pursuit to find truth. They just live day-to-day following whatever path they choose. It’s very easy to state that truth is powerful, the difficult thing is to fully grasp just how powerful it is and what that term even means.

According to many philosophers and religious people, truth is a heavenly element. The reason for this feeling is that no matter how much we theorize and how much we debate we, as people will never understand the complete truth of life. Therefore theoretically if God created all things, including truth, then he would be the only one to fully know what it means. Also consider that truth is drastically different to different people. If it were possible to ask God what the true meaning of truth is, it would uniformly change everyone’s personal belief of the matter. That is unless the one true truth is that everyone does in fact have their own truth and its up to them to figure it out for themselves. If that were indeed it than we have actually known truth all along but the debating of it is really truly useless.

But what if we are looking for truth in the wrong form? Could the truth we have been searching centuries for, actually be totally different than what we expected. Emily Dickenson wrote, “For beauty… and I for truth, the two are one; we brethren are’. Could truth indeed be just that in the form of beauty? After having so much trouble finding the truth maybe it’s possible that it’s all around us. This doesn’t take away from the theory that everyone has their own truth, in fact they work hand in hand. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so just as your truth may be different from mine, you might see beauty in different places. Regardless, everybody sees beauty. Beauty is in everything, so why can’t it be in everyone. Sticking with the belief that truth is heavenly, keep in mind God also created the things that people find beauty in. He created the landscapes and the people who spark beauty not only into the eye, but also into the soul. There are thousands of moments throughout life that a person can reflect on and see the beauty. These are the moments that become memories. Memories shape people into who they are, who they will become, and how they will live on after death. Our whole existence is full of memories, we learn from them, we laugh at them, we cry over them all until we become them. Fact of life is that when a person dies they simply become memories for everyone else.

Furthering that belief, what if truth is not just all around us in but in us as well? Love is in between heaven and hell. Love can heal and love can hurt and in the healing and warmth we find beauty. The same beauty we find all around us, however this form is more pure. The loving form of beauty is capable of making you feel as close to fulfilled as anything else mortal life has to offer. When talking about finding your truth in life, anything that makes you feel fulfilled in this sense must be pretty close to it. For that reason believing love in all it’s earthly forms is the truth we should be striving to attain throughout life. Surrounding yourself with people who love you is a normal human action. It’s a primal instinct to want have people that won’t harm you as your closest acquaintances. Most people in the world would agree that their happiest moments are spent with loved ones. The people in life where unconditional love goes both ways are the people you can see truth in. That truth is something that everybody in life can find. For some it may be harder than others, but keep in mind that love can come from anyone at anytime. Love doesn’t always come from family or a partner it comes from everyone. The small acts of love that can make people come together are more powerful than most people can ever understand. The impact and reach a small showing of love and kindness can achieve is incredible and I would argue that truth is the driving factor behind all of it.

Truth is powerful. We have heard that since we were children. Its may be slightly easier to understand just what that means to us now. The pursuit of the truth drives all elements of human life. But what exactly is it? If that question could be answered it would save a lot of people a lot of time trying to figure it out. I believe the best way to answer that question is that it depends. Truth depends on the person seeking it out. Truth is behind everything for everyone, but truth is different for everyone. Truth is beauty, but truth is also ugliness. Truth is love, but truth is also hate. What truth is is unimportant. What truth does is vital to our existence as human beings. Everybody’s chase for their own truth makes the world go round, and the truth itself drives their pursuit to find it. We may never fully understand it, but truth is powerful and truth is everything and truth is in all of us.

Introduction

John Locke was born in 29 August 1632 and died in 28 October 1704. His era was the 17th century, era of early modern philosophy. He was an English philosopher and physician, and known as the Father of Liberalism.

He was known as first British empiricists, he followed the tradition of “Sir Francis Bacon”. he is equally important to social contract theory. His main interest was in Metaphysics, epistemology, political philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of education and in economics.

He developed different theories in which included the “ theory of mind” , “Theory of value”, “property” , “Political theory”, “On price theory”, “The self” and “Theories of religious tolerance” (Hirschmann, J. Nancy , 2009).

Nature of Man

He stated, ‘ God makes a man normally allowed to seek after life, freedom, wellbeing and property as regular rights’. Humankind ought not to hurt others in their life, wellbeing, freedom or assets and thus anticipate that their very own rights should regarded. More he stated, A person is commonly a social creature.

State of human instinct

The condition of nature is pre-political, yet it isn’t pre-moral. People are thought to be equivalent to each other in such state, and along these lines similarly equipped for finding and being bound by law of Nature.

The law of nature, which is the premise of all ethical quality, and given to us by God, Commands that we not hurt others concerning their ‘life’, wellbeing, freedom or assets. More, it is the Natural state of humankind, is a condition of perfect and complete opportunity that somebody carry on with his existence without the impedance of others.

The condition of nature, to numerous political logicians, is the condition by which people would wind up without common specialist.

• It is tied in with living with no peace, and the way to judiciously exist together with each other in common request, where human instinct is frequently observed as the main thrust behind it.
• Human Nature is really characterized as basic characteristics shared by all people. Theory has regularly been worried about distinguishing what establishes and drives human instinct and with deciding if human instinct is basically great or fiendishness.
• These shared requirements comprise of nourishment and water, cover, they are albeit socially applicable.
• For model safe house might be looked for from cold unforgiving ecological conditions yet additionally for the searing sun) and various others (Maslow. A, 1908).

Locke trusted that people would be bound by a progression of normal laws that keep people from hurting each other. More he stated, laws of nature are undeniable which are found through self-reflection (Heywood, 1992).

He expresses a few points, that are given underneath:

• All people are equivalent. In his view no individual is higher or more significant than the other, along these lines all people are equivalent and free according to God, he states anyway that people are free, yet this freedom ought not be mistaken for permit (the opportunity to do anything you desire).
• Limited opportunity by God. This opportunity is constrained by the undeniable characteristic laws, which would forbid a person from submitting certain demonstrations, for instance ending it all and hurting another, as God has made the person to experience their life, and all men are made equivalent, individually.
• Right to rebuff. Locke portrays this as though an individual was assaulted without great aim, at that point he has the privilege to rebuff them, on the grounds that the laws of nature disallow anybody from hurting another without avocation for doing as such. This privilege to rebuff be that as it may, reaches out to the individuals who have seen the mischief or been educated regarding it, and after that the third individual holds the privilege to rebuff the transgressor, as considered fit (Warburton, 2001).

In any case, this circumstance my offer ascent to facilitate issues, for instance, people might be inclination in their avocation of discipline, as in it might advance their own advantages. Over that, Locke recommends that the association and development of a legislature, whose job it is to set up a free legal executive by leaving the condition of nature.

Locke states: ‘without law, there is no opportunity’ (Locke, 1988).

• Need for insurance. Locke’s essential inspiration for people leaving the condition of nature, and going into common society is the requirement for insurance, the assurance of life, freedom and property. Despite the fact that in the condition of nature everybody has the privilege to rebuff the individuals who violate the laws of nature.
• Safety is accessible Only in sorted out society. He stated, the main certification to make harmony is to go into sorted out society. It is commonly settled upon that people will surrender a level of their normal opportunity so as to pick up a larger amount of security. The ability to make and uphold laws is depended upon the individual or gathering to represent the benefit of all of all (Cuttingham, 2000).
• Common laws advantages to all. The ability to make and authorize laws is endowed upon the individual or gathering to represent the benefit of everyone of all. He composes that people consent to losing an extent of the opportunity by method for entering an implicit agreement, Locke names this a ‘minimized’ made among one and another.

This smaller is gone into openly and unequivocally, known as an ‘express’ understanding. At the point when the reduced is inferred instead of consented to it is known as ‘implied’ understanding (Cuttingham, 2000).

In spite of the fact that people are naturally introduced to acculturated society, Locke expresses that if an individual advantages from the common society, by then an inferred understanding has been made and certain trademark rights are given.

• Laws can be supplanted. When the reduced has been made, an individual picks and consents to being bound by the choices of the greater part. A component to Locke’s production is that people in understanding of the minimized once in a while reserve the option to topple and supplant their rulers. At the point when a despot runs society or savage government violate its real job, the administration relinquishes its capacity to the residents of the social reduced.
• No Government has absolutes control. He convictions that a legislature is government by assent. To Locke, no administration has outright control over its residents; the breaking points on the power are the cutoff points to serving the benefit of all (Cuttingham, 2000).

The points of confinement of human Understanding

Locke is frequently delegated the first of the incomparable English empiricists, This notoriety lays on Locke’s most prominent work, the fantastic An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He clarifies his undertaking in a few spots. Be that as it may, the most significant of his objectives is to decide the breaking points of human comprehension. Locke writes In his four books of the Essay Locke thinks about the sources and nature of human information.

John lock convictions

• One of the numerous things John Locke accepted was that everybody had common rights, for example, Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of Happiness (Deverell).
• He trusted that there ought to be an implicit agreement among rulers and the general population (Deverell). Locke likewise trusted that if the general population discovered that their ruler or government was degenerate they could topple/cancel it ( Stuckey).
• The law could easily compare to some other person.
• Everyone was of a positive sort and trusted everybody was basically reasonable and unselfish.
• People reserved the option to act the manner in which they need partly. Nobody in the legislature ought to have supreme power. Likewise only one out of every odd human is twisted on devastation.

What Type of Government Did John Locke Believe In:

Common Rights

The primary philosophical point was that common rights were only that, ‘normal,’ and couldn’t be detracted from individuals by the state. These rights were inherent and had a place with everybody. Actually, Locke trusted that it was these common rights that would adjust the administration and hold the incredible pioneers under control.

Property

Locke contended that any individual who collaborates with a bit of property is in this manner guaranteeing responsibility for. What’s more, before the man chipped away at the land, the land hypothetically had a place with everybody. Locke’s way to deal with property has establishes in the understanding that the land is pointless to man except if man takes a shot at it, adjusts it and makes it his.

Chosen Officials

The second philosophical point Locke made was that he had confidence in a delegate government that would have chosen authorities in some limit. In any case, Locke didn’t know about enabling regular individuals to be a piece of administrative choices and needed the chosen authorities to just be men who had a business association and property.

Government’s Role

Locke trusted that the minute a legislature messed with an’s individual rights, that administration would be opposed and wouldn’t serve its kin. Indeed, one of the central parts of his rationality is that administration must regard its kin and their rights.

Impact of John Locke

John Locke’s impact reached out far, including the American Constitution and political frameworks. His idea frameworks are as yet present in radicalism. Actually, he’s perceived as a standout amongst the most remarkable logicians to shape current society. His re-rise as a well known and relatable thinker occurred in the twentieth century.

Introduction

The notion of the inheritance of Evil has been prevalent since the onset of the Second World War, where homicide, rape and racism, captured the interest of moral, political and legal philosophers. As a complicated and broad term, many religions shed light on this concept from differing angles. “The way in which we understand Evil is crucial to our conception of morality”1 (Kekes, 1988).

The Original Sin and Evil are seen by Luther2 as “an inheritance from Adam and Eve, passed on to all mankind…”. This view offers an explanation of the inheritance of Evil within men since the very beginning. This claim has been supported by Brian Masters3, the author of several biographies of several mass murders. In one of his interviews, Masters stated that “… Every human being can commit evil acts”. The renowned Chinese symbol, the Yin Yang4, also symbolizes the impurity within all men, where there is always a form of darkness within even the brightest of souls, and conversely, brightness in the darkest of souls.

Within human history, the concept of the inheritance of Evil within human nature has been and remains to be highly subjective. Many studies, such as the infamous Milgram Experiment5 and the Stanford Prison Experiment6, have shown how good people commit acts of sin or Evil when provided with the ideal circumstances. In Sam Raimi’s movie, A Simple Plan, the emergence of Evil within men is also thoroughly portrayed and explored. It shows how “sometimes good people do evil things.” Novels, such as Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, where the protagonist meets his inner Evil, through the head of a slaughtered pig, also explore the inheritance of Evil within men.

The evil Within Man

“Evil originates in humans, yet evil exists outside them.”

Hedonism 7, one of Aristotle’s most famous theories, states that a man will tend to do actions which result in pleasure and avoid pain. The word ‘Hedonism, originates from the ancient Greek for ‘pleasure’. However, the continuous cycle for a pain-free and happy lifestyle often leads to impulsivity. In Aristotle’s writings, ‘As amoral beings, our selfish nature as being driven with the impulse to achieve happiness makes us immoral… The impetus to achieve a certain kind of pleasure blinds man to what is morally right, thus he becomes immoral’. This immorality within men results in the behaviours, deemed as Evil.

The perpetual chase by Hank, the main protagonist, for ‘The American dream’ in the movie, A Simple Plan, demonstrates the effects of Hedonism on an individual. Hank’s impulse for retainment of the money, which would guarantee a pain-free and financially safe lifestyle, blinds him from the immorality of his actions. Similarly, impulse for power and control is also heavily explored in the novella, Heart Of Darkness by Joseph Conrad. In the story, the speaker, Marlow, recalls his encounters with Kurtz, a money-driven man who loses his sanity within the Congo forest, so called the heart of Africa. Conrad, in his story, portrays, the deceitful journey of Kurtz, from being a loving husband, to a cold-blooded salve-master in a morally blinding quest of reaching a financially painless state. Comment by Erfan MANGANI: Recheck the sentence

An experiment conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram (1963), The Obedience experiment and known as the infamous Milgram experiment, involved participants having to electrocute the ‘learner’. The purpose of this experiment examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by these accused at the second world war. Their defense often was based on “obedience” and that they were simply following orders15. In order to explore and justify the men’s explanations, having no visual sight of the learner, the participant could only hear the screams of the ‘learner’ (an actor), when provided with the wrong answer to the question.

Hence, it could be concluded that the action of evil is not always caused by inner immoral attributes but could also be due to external pressures acting on a given subject.

Another example of evil that relates to pressuring pure subjects is the Holocaust. The Subjects in this matter could be considered as the guards, in charge of the executions. Their strict orders enforced by the Nazi regime, pushes these, potentially pure men, into committing horrific acts of evil.

The exploration of the Inheritance Evil in texts

In all forms of text, the antagonistic characters, all share a common attribute of the Seven deadly Sins10. The Seven Deadly Sins, as held in the Christianity, are transgressions which are detrimental to spiritual progress. The seven deadly sins consist of Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth. More specifically, envy and greed are the most commonly present attributes in evil characters. In the work of Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness, almost all aspects of the seven deadly sins are explored. The manager, exhibits great pride, placing the wellbeing of oneself over the one of others. Kurtz, exhibits greed, slaughtering for materialistic possessions. The bricklayer, exhibits sloth, as he does little while wanting to be manager. Majority of other characters below Kurtz exhibit envy towards Kurtz’s reputable position. The overweight man on Marlow’s journey represents gluttony. Kurtz’s furious outbursts towards Harlequin exhibit Anger. The use of the seven deadly sins in order to showcase the quality of evil, within a given character, demonstrates how the evil qualities of the characters were not inherent, but achieved through choices made throughout life.

Aristotle, In his theory of human nature, argued that morality is something that is learnt and that all humans are born as ‘Amoral creatures’8 . He also stated that we become immoral not from birth, but from the choices we make.

The lack of decision-making which leads to immorality, is heavily portrayed in ‘A simple Plan’, where the main protagonist, Hank, a loved neighbour, husband and soon to be father commits horrific acts of violence and betrayal, due to the ill choices made. Similarly, in Heart Of Darkness, the main antagonistic, Kurtz, showcases this attribute through his addiction to power. In a symbolic image employed by Conrad in his novella, Kurtz is depicted as a blindfolded woman bearing a torch against a nearly black background. This image captures how Kurtz is blinded by immorality and falsehood of his decisions and actions.

Perception of the Inheritance of Evil

According to the Oxford dictionary, Evil is an action that is Profoundly immoral or wicked. The beliefs of societies regarding the definition of Evil differ significantly. Thus the act of ‘evil’ is also perceived differently, as stated by Jill Patterson, “…Evil is a socially constructed concept”. Numerous religions by different people state many different acts as forms of Evil. Evil sometimes is even associated with sins. For example, in Islam, consumption of pork is considered as sin and is referred to as Evil, but the same practice is considered normal in a Christian society. Slavery could also be an example of how the term ‘Evil’ changes according to its context and era. Slavery nowadays is considered as an evil act but was considered normal during the 18th century in Europe. In an opinion piece in The New Yorker, Rollo Roaming refers to Evil as an act that is, “…both harmful and inexplicable… What defines the act of Evil is that it is permanently disorientating for all those touched by it” (2012).

One may shine a light on the term evil, from many different angles, also due to their background. In Christianity, left-handed people suffered physical punishment of centuries of religious, scientific, and social thought12. Hence, based on Christian theology, left-handed people were considered as inherently evil. Similar norms also apply in Jewish writing, where the Old Testament states that humans have two impulses, Yetzer Hatov and Yetzer Hara13. In Jewish ethics, these two impulses are used to explain the inheritance of Evil within a being from birth. The Yetzer Hatov, the ‘evil inclination,’ is not a demonic force that pushes an individual to commit Evil but is instead a drive towards pleasure, property or security, which, when left unlimited, could lead one to Evil. In contrast, the Yetzer Hara is the inclination towards goodwill in beings. When making sense of the human body, the Testament states that and inclination towards good appears on the right and the tendency towards wickedness to the left. The right hand of the human body is also perceived to endure the righteousness of an individual, whereas the left, as an inappreciable and unclean. As stated in E.W. Lane’s book, An Account of the manners and customs of the modern Egypt14 ,” It is a rule with the Muslims to honour the right hand above the left: to use the right hand for all honourable purposes, and the left for actions which, though necessary, are unclean.”

The third century BCE Chinese principle of the Ying Yang16 is that all forces complement one-another, and all exist as inseparable and contradictory opposites. The symbol of the Ying Yang, as shown in the figure below. “…The Ying yang symbol represents the philosophy that life is incredibly non-dualistic, meaning there is a little bit of something in everything” 17. In Chinese methodology, the Ying Yang explains how a being cannot be purely evil, and regardless how virtuous, cannot be pure. This methodology portrays how all beings inherit some form of evil from birth18. Hence, it could be concluded that most cultures believe that men have some from of impurity within their souls since birth, thus inherently evil.

Natural Vs Moral Evil

Evil originates in humans, yet evil also exists outside of them7. Referred to as Natural evil20 by Catholic moral theologists, it is an occurrence at which no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence. Hence no man is inherently naturally evil, however Mother-nature could be.

In the real world, natural disasters, incurable diseases, famines and even deformities are often referred to as Natural Evil. To further understand the definition of natural evil, we may further divide it into the following two classes: Physical evil and Metaphysical evil 21. Physical evil refers to bodily or mental suffering, such as disabilities or deformities. Metaphysical, refers to natural disasters, often resulting in hundreds of causalities, such as the black death, droughts or earthquakes.

There is therefore the argument against the existence of god based on natural evil; As if there was a being who was omniscient and perfectly good, there would be no natural evil.

In Joseph Conrad’s novella, Heart of Darkness, the Congo forest was often personified as vulturous and evil. In the second chapter of novella, where Marlow, the protagonist and narrator, describes the Congo forest “…a rioting invasion of soundless life, a rolling wave of plants, piled up, crested ready to topple over the creek, to sweep every little man of us[Marlow] out of his little existence…”. This negative personification of the Congo jungle continues throughout the entire story, suggesting it’s unwelcoming nature.

References

1. Kekes, J. (1991). Facing evil. Princeton, N.J. Oxford: Princeton University Press, p.143.
2. En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Original sin. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
3. Goldhill, O. (2019). Are some humans born evil?. [online] Telegraph.co.uk. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11195840/Are-some-humans-born-evil.html [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
4. Cartwright, M. and Cartwright, M. (2019). Yin and Yang. [online] Ancient History Encyclopedia. Available at: https://www.ancient.eu/Yin_and_Yang/ [Accessed 29 Oct. 2019].
5. Mcleod, S. (2019). Milgram Experiment | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
6. Mcleod, S. (2019). Stanford Prison Experiment | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
7. Anon, (2019). [online] Available at: http://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/12406/ [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
8. S-space.snu.ac.kr. (2019). [online] Available at: http://s-space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/12406/1/phil_thought_v21_109.pdf [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
9. Plato.stanford.edu. (2019). Hedonism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hedonism/ [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
10. Academia. (2006). ARISTOTLE ON HUMAN NATURE. [online] Available at: https://www.academia.edu/27382428/ARISTOTLE_ON_HUMAN_NATURE [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
11. Shanon, A. (2019). Seven Deadly Sins. [online] Seven Deadly Sins. Available at: http://www.deadlysins.com/ [Accessed 26 Oct. 2019].
12. Cox, S. (2016). How Left-Handedness Came To Be Seen As Evil. [online] All That’s Interesting. Available at: https://allthatsinteresting.com/left-handedness-evil [Accessed 28 Oct. 2019].
13. Spitzer, J. (2019). The Birth of the Good Inclination | My Jewish Learning. [online] My Jewish Learning. Available at: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-birth-of-the-good-inclination/ [Accessed 28 Oct. 2019].
14. William Lane, E. and Stanley Poole, E. (1833). An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians. 5th ed. London.
15. Mcleod, S. (2019). Milgram Experiment | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html [Accessed 29 Oct. 2019].
16. Cartwright, M. and Cartwright, M. (2016). Yin and Yang. [online] Ancient History Encyclopedia. Available at: https://www.ancient.eu/Yin_and_Yang/ [Accessed 29 Oct. 2019].
17. Enlightenedsolutions.com. (2018). Yin And Yang: The Good In The Bad, The Bad In The Good. [online] Available at: https://www.enlightenedsolutions.com/yin-yang-good-bad/ [Accessed 29 Oct. 2019].
18. Stump, E. (1985). THE PROBLEM OF EVIL. 2nd ed. [ebook] Faith and Philosophy. Available at: https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/c/1227/files/2015/11/Stump-TheProbOfEvil-1veqk4v.pdf [Accessed 29 Oct. 2019].
19. 1. Patterson, J. (2010). How evil is a socially constructed concept: Evil across societies | The Manitoban. [online] The Manitoban. Available at: http://www.themanitoban.com/2012/10/how-evil-is-a-socially-constructed-concept-evil-across-societies/12309/ [Accessed 29 Oct. 2019].
20. Beale, S. (2019). The Problem of Natural Evil. [online] Catholic Exchange. Available at: https://catholicexchange.com/the-problem-of-natural-evil [Accessed 29 Oct. 2019].
21. Pecorino, P. (2001). The Nature of Evil. [online] Qcc.cuny.edu. Available at: http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_6_PROBLEM_of_EVIL/Nature_of_Evil.htm [Accessed 30 Oct. 2019].

Karl Marx was born in 1818 to a middle-class family in what was then called Prussia and pursued an academic career before pivoting to political journalism to advocate for revolutionary socialism. Almost thirty years later, Friedrich Nietzsche was born and also pursued an academic career at the University of Basel in Switzerland until he was enlisted to serve in the Prussian military shortly thereafter. He suffered from a number of physical ailments before succumbing to a complete mental breakdown in 1889. The two did not consider themselves to be sociologists, yet both developed significant sociological theories that continue to be discussed today. However, unlike Marx, Nietzsche is not considered to be part of the classical sociological canon but rather an influencer. Over the course of their lives and careers, they each developed distinct notions of human nature that would prove to be significant in affecting their other views of society. Both Marx’s conception of human nature that our species being is characterized by our distinctive productive capacities and Nietzsche’s belief that humans are naturally and fundamentally motivated by the will to power were employed to inform their critiques of modern society, specifically the alienation of labor and the bad conscience, respectively.

To begin with, Marx’s conception of human nature is actually that of a so-called species being, which is defined as the potentials and powers that are uniquely human and that distinguish humans from other species. Essentially, humans have this inherent need to create because they can only recognize their potential through conscious, productive activity, according to Marx (Tucker 1978:150). As such, humans are defined by how and what they produce, which intimately ties labor, or productive activity, to the concept of the species being. Labor allows individuals to express their creative potential by objectifying products of their imagination and transforming them into real physical objects. Gradually, basic material needs are met, and new needs are created, which leads to the propagation of ideas and the advancement of technology. Furthermore, social relations, or the division of labor, will change and adapt to these productive forces, causing people to enter into definite relations of production. The sum total of the relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society on which rises an ideological superstructure that corresponds to definite forms of social consciousness, further signifying the value of labor. Since Marx recognizes the importance of productivity to the concept of the species being, he is concerned with the alienation of labor that occurred under capitalism when people lost control over their own labor power and over the conditions and objects of their labor. He critiques the capitalist nature of modern society for allowing the distinguishing characteristic of human nature to reach this level of estrangement. Instead of leading to personal and spiritual fulfillment, work is where individuals feel the least human because they are alienated from their species being (Tucker 1978:77). Industrial capitalism, in particular, continues to displace more and more workers due to increased production, forcing laborers to become “appendages of the machine” (Tucker 1978:479). Therefore, Marx’s conception of human nature as a species being and his understanding that it is heavily reliant on productive activity informs his critique of modern capitalism and its contribution to the alienation of labor.

On the other hand, Nietzsche focuses on the fundamental drive of the will to power in his conception of human nature. Although he fails to properly define this theory of human motivation, it can be inferred that he was referencing the idea that people desire power over others. Prior to the development of modern society, humans were adapted to a certain, perhaps even primitive, way of life that involved wilderness, war, and the like (Kaufmann 2000:520). Mankind was far crueler yet, surprisingly, unashamed of their prehistoric instincts such as hostility and cruelty (Kaufmann 2000:502). For example, when debts failed to be repaid, some form of punishment that involved the suffering of the debtor was exercised by the creditor as a form of compensation. The ability to inflict pain upon others was pleasurable because it allowed individuals to experience a sense of power and authority that constitutes the perceived basis of the will to power (Kaufmann 2000:501). However, over time, society transformed and demanded that people’s prehistoric instincts be suppressed and internalized, which marked the beginning of the bad conscience that plagues modern society (Kaufmann 2000:520). Unfortunately, the bad conscience, or the will to self-maltreatment, has only continued to intensify with the coming of Christianity. Not only did it redefine what it means to be “good” and “bad”, leading to the regression of mankind, but it also gave rise to the irredeemable debt of eternal punishment and of God (Kaufmann 2000:479). Nietzsche asserts that humans have become weak due to their willingness to promote ideals of Christianity that deem themselves guilty to an irreparable degree while enduring feelings of absolute unworthiness (Kaufmann 2000:526). When the poor and the sick are regarded as good and even blessed by God, the will to power ceases to exist because the noble and powerful are considered to be evil, cruel, and damned (Kaufmann 2000:470). With that being said, Nietzsche capitalizes upon this idea of the fundamental driving force behind human behavior and motivation, this will to power, to critique specific aspects of modern society such as the bad conscience and Christianity.

In contrast to the teachings of Nietzsche, Marx supported the idea of material conditions and emphasized the importance of satisfying one’s material needs, while the former highlighted the influence of values on human psychology and behavior. He posits that the meanings of values or moral concepts are arbitrary because they change depending on who is interpreting the notion at hand. For example, the word “guilt” initially had no relation to the concept of the bad conscience until society began to associate guilt with the bad conscience over time (Kaufmann 2000:498). One can see how such values shape human behavior by looking at the internalization of man that occurred after the meaning of guilt evolved to what it is today. Meanwhile, Marx’s idea of material conditions asserts that changes in social relations and social consciousness only come after the satisfaction of material needs (Tucker 1978:155). As a result, human nature is heavily influenced by materialism as opposed to ideology and values, as portrayed in Marx’s conceptual model of the superstructure and the base. According to him, class conflict and material interests are the driving forces of social change. He also describes human nature, or species being, as inherently productive, which seemingly differs slightly from Nietzsche’s idea that humans are naturally destructive in their cruel and violent actions. However, these characteristics are not mutually exclusive in that Nietzsche did not promote destruction but rather recognized that the “joy in destruction” was a natural inclination before societal change prompted humans to suppress their prehistoric instincts (Kaufmann 2000:478). In his critique of modern society, he compliments the development of the inner life, or the soul, that accompanied the internalization of man and made humans “interesting.” Therefore, he does not want society to return to primitive or barbaric ways of life; he hopes that society can instead link the bad conscience to their unnatural inclinations of guilt and shame. Like Marx, Nietzsche recognizes the importance of productive activity to human nature. He continues to condemn the will to nothingness brought about by the bad conscience that results in mediocrity and prevents mankind from reaching its fullest potential. Marx, on the other hand, views productive activity as a form of motivation for human nature. As such, he criticizes modern capitalism for alienating individuals from their labor and, in turn, their sense of ambition and interest.

With that being said, Nietzsche and Marx have each established definite conceptions of human nature that shape their perceptions of and, more specifically, their critiques of modern society. Marx concentrates on the species being, which is synonymous with human nature, and its innate need to create and express productive capabilities; and Nietzsche dwells on an ambiguous will to power that he considers the fundamental driving force behind human behavior. Although both theorists provide convincing material to support their assertions, Marx appears to utilize scientific evidence to a greater extent as opposed to Nietzsche’s use of primarily empirical evidence. However, readers should also recognize Marx’s failure to depict what society would look like following the “inevitable collapse of capitalism” (Tucker 1978:483).

What really separates us from animals as human beings? The need for civility, being controlled by fear and power is instilled in the fundamentals of our instincts. William Golding’s 1954 novel, Lord of the Flies explores these themes through the fictional story of a group of schoolboys who are trapped on a deserted tropical island when trying to evacuate Britain in the midst of a war. Although the boys seem to be enjoying their new lives without parents or rules of any kind towards the start of the story, it can be seen that this challenge of survival gradually brings out the true characteristics of the boys and tells another story of true human nature. By heavily raising their selfishness, dominance amongst each other and finding the point of savagery one would go to when their life is on the line positions the audience to question their peers around them, thinking that when hard times do arise, who is really going to be around them until the very end. The novel also uses an imaginary beast that the boys believe to be true and frightens them greatly, which only acts as a figure of the primal instinct of savagery that exists within our nature.

At the core of every ideal society and civilization, there are a set of rules and laws that protect its members from chaos, most often created by a form of Government, then upheld by authorities and disciplinary actions for those who decide to go against those rules and laws. An impulse to injustice and unorganized crime, amongst many others, would be the result of this sort of anarchy, due to the selfishness and barbaric traits that are at the core of true human nature. The novel, Lord Of the Flies, reiterates this philosophy throughout the novel. The author portrays this with the use of setting and characterization, by choosing a vulnerable group of schoolboys who at their age, are in the most need of authority and structure, and leaves them stranded on a deserted island. An environment without a higher authority of any kind sounds like any child’s dream and is the same for the group of boys in the novel, however, this quickly changes when Ralph and others attempt to create a set of rules and form a sort of civil manner within the group. “We’ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we’re not savages (Pg 42).” In chapter 2, Ralph assembles everyone together to hold a meeting where he introduces the first rule to the group, being that when in a meeting a person can only talk when they hold the conch shell, everybody else must listen. Throughout the novel, Ralph creates and attempts to implement a few more simple rules for the boys, acting as a sort of government figurehead for the group. This attempt at creating a simple system of civilization ultimately fails as there is a lack of authority and discipline in relation to breaking these laws, the boys remain inconsistent with them and only use the rules when it suits their selfish needs or wants. Golding suggests to the audience that perhaps without an equal part of fear and hope, civilization is built to fail, and our own inner beast is eventually going to come out.

Fear is another prevalent theme throughout the novel, Lord of the Flies. As a community, we fear many things, such as a fear of failure, change, rejection, and uncertainty. As humans, we favor a routine, something that sets our day-to-day life and eliminates the unknown. The lack of willingness to overcome fear is what stops our natural progression as a society. Fear is instilled in all of us, as kids we fear the dark, but as we grow up we fear the darkness that represents emptiness or the darkness of life itself. This is depicted in Lord of the Flies the beast and its relation to the schoolboys. The group is put in a very tough situation right from the start, being stranded on the island without any form of contact with any one of the outside world. In Chapter 2, Golding also introduces the idea of the beast when a littlun comes to a boy in a hysterical state, mentioning “a snake thing. Ever so big. He saw it (page 34 line 25).” At first, the boys criticize the matter and reject the idea of it possibly existing, “Then he couldn’t see it! Laughter and cheers (Pg 35).” The boys only start to believe in this beast when in Chapter 6, a dead paratrooper falls to the island, in which Samneric, Ralph, Jack, and Roger mistake the dead body for the beast and believe in its existence for the remainder of the novel and treat it as a totemic god by leaving it sacrifices of animals and even kill their best friend Simon because of it. As the boys act more savagely, the more the beast appears to be real. Simon acknowledged the existence of the beast but did so in a more spiritual sense, when he says in chapter 5, “Maybe… there is a beast… What I mean is… maybe it’s only in all of us (Pg 195).” This represents the true meaning of the beast that Golding metaphorically was getting across to the audience, that fear itself is more powerful and dangerous than any beast or creature.

Power in our society is essential, but when done incorrectly, can be the downfall of everything. We all feel the need to be powerful and own a sense of wealth in relation to our peers. Conquering and gaining power has been a part of society for centuries, being resembled by the Emperors of the Aztecs in 1345 A.D to political presidents and leaders of the 21st century. A person of power dictates his/her peers and in most cases can just be a figure of hope and direction and gives a voice to their people. This is represented in two different ways in Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies. After being stranded on the island, the boys are seen to create two leaders early on in the book, mainly being Ralph and the other being Jack. However, even though the two are seen as leaders of the group, they both represent two different types of powers. Ralph being a more calculated and mature leader, representing civility and peace, and Jack being a more careless and impulsive leader, representing greed and evil in our human nature. This power dynamic can be seen in chapter 5 when Jack ignores Ralphs’s authority.

Representing an autocratic government where power is taken, Jack questions Ralphs’s leadership and obviously becomes envious of this status he has earned and does this several times throughout the novel. Golding uses a rhetorical question in “who are you, anyway,” to position the audience to view Jacks’s speech as more aggressive as this doesn’t just attack Ralph as a leader but him as a person, and also positions the reader to feel more sympathy towards Ralph.

As humans today, society tries to distract us from no one but ourselves essentially, and attempts to divert our thoughts from our own human nature. 21st Century media tells us that we are caring, thoughtful, powerful, and peaceful creatures, even though our history suggests otherwise. We are at constant war with each other, we commit mass murders for almost no reason at all, we allow evil to be prevalent in our world just because it’s inconvenient and doesn’t affect us personally. We have made miraculous and incredible feats as a race, however, we cannot ignore the fact that greed, selfishness, savagery, and evil are a part of all of us fundamentally. William Golding keeps his audience entertained through the story and mishaps of the schoolboys in his 1950 classic novel Lord of the Flies, while also portraying an underlying meaning and philosophy to our fundamental human nature, by using multiple metaphors, the use of characterization and setting, and rhetorical questions. From this novel, we can learn that when change occurs, so do people. Our character is what makes us as an individual and our true human nature will only come out when it is really forced to. Our own individual beasts in life will find our true human nature.

‘Describe and understand how science works within a wide range of sciences. This does not have to include every kind of science. But it had better not be confined to a single branch of a single science, for such an understanding would add little to what scientists working in that area already know’ (Forster, 2004). It is concerned with all the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and feature of science. This is meant to be a characterization of general philosophy of science. It also includes studies in the foundations of science, which legitimately narrow their focus to particular sciences” (Forster, 2004).

Another way is looking to the science is that the science aims at practical recommendations and problem- solving. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics, ontology and epistemology. Teaching and Learning Ontology and Epistemology in Science. The teaching and learning of ontology and epistemology is an important element of science, as it helps scholar to appraise, differentiate and choose between competing philosophies, theories and analytical traditions.

Theories, concepts and issues must be rendered accessible, while at the same time remaining accurate. Thus, the necessary act of simplification, which enables initial understanding, must maintain the possibility of critical engagement, yet not result in any distortion which would misrepresent positions and confuse subsequent learning processes.

As such, teaching and learning within science should not be about the instruction and regurgitation of knowledge. Instead, teaching should mean alerting students to different ways of thinking. It should provide a non-prescriptive basis from which students can reflexively engage with the material in order to uncover relationships, connections and underlying patterns and, consequently, partake in critical analysis.

Engaging in this ‘critical analysis’ does not constitute an attempt to teach students to be critical theorists, critical realists or a particular kind of critic, in any theoretical sense. Rather, critical analysis refers to the crucial capacity to engage with, interrogate and challenge other perspectives. Teaching and learning ontology and epistemology are important in science for fostering the processes and strategies of inquiry, role taking and benign disruption, which enable this reflexive learning.

Developing a capacity for inquiry – the ability to ask questions – is crucial if students are to interrogate and challenge the differences between, the assumptions made, and the knowledge produced by, particular theoretical and analytical traditions.

In general, role-taking experiences are important for intellectual development because they enable students to critique their own position from the point of view of another and, concurrently, allow them to comprehend another’s position. The vital movement towards reflexive learning can be facilitated through engaging with ontological and epistemological issues, as it enables understanding and adjudication between contending theoretical and analytical traditions. (Bates & Jenkins, 2007).

The Paradigm

A paradigm consists of the following components: ontology, epistemology, methodology, and, methods. Each component is explained, and then the relationships between them are explored.

Epistemological assumptions are concerned with how knowledge can be created, acquired and communicated, in other words what it means to know. Every paradigm is based upon its own ontological and epistemological assumptions. Since all assumptions are conjecture, the philosophical underpinnings of each paradigm can never be empirically proven or disproven. Different paradigms inherently contain differing ontological and epistemological views. Research methods can be traced back, through methodology and epistemology, to an ontological position. It is impossible to engage in any form of research without committing.

The scientific paradigm rose to prominence during the Enlightenment. The ontological position of positivism is one of realism. Realism is the view that objects have an existence independent of the knower. The positivist epistemology is one of objectivism. Positivists go forth into the world impartially, discovering absolute knowledge about an objective reality. Thus, phenomena have an independent existence which can be discovered via research. Positivistic statements are descriptive and factual. The scientific paradigm is foundational as scientific propositions are founded on data and facts.

The scientific paradigm seeks predictions and generalizations; thus, methods often generate quantitative data. Examples include: standardized tests, closed ended questionnaires and descriptions of phenomena using standardized observation tools. Analysis involves descriptive and inferential statistics. Inferential statistics allow sample results to be generalized to populations. Research is deemed good if its results are due to the independent variable, can be generalized/transferred to other populations or situations, and different researchers can record the same data in the same way and arrive at the same conclusions. Additionally, research needs to be as objective as possible and robust to empirical refutation. (Scotland, 2012).

The Logic

Logic and probability are the standard tools of philosophy of science. Probability can be seen as an extension of logic, so it is important to understand the basics concepts of logic first. Logic has many branches. The best known branch of logic is called deductive logic. Briefly, deduction is what mathematicians do, except when they use simplifying approximations, which happens a lot in science. (Forster, 2004). An argument is a set of claims, one of which is the conclusion and the rest of which are the premises. The conclusion states the point being argued for and the premises state the reasons being advanced in support the conclusion. They may not be good reasons. There are good and bad arguments. An argument is deductively valid if and only if it is impossible that its conclusion is false while its premises are true. According to intuitivism, the problem is to understand how a hypothesis like? All planets move in ellipses? Is supported by, or confirmed by, the fact that all the instances of the generalization observed so far have been true. One inductivity strategy is to ask what missing premise must be added to the argument to make it deductively valid, and then to evaluate the truth of the added premise (Hitchcock, 2004).

Simple ideas tend to be more complicated that they appear at first sight. In the end, it defend the view that science has a logic, albeit one that reaches beyond deductive logic into the murkier realm of statistical inference (Forster, 2004).

Explanation

Although the subject of explanation has been a major concern of philosophy, modern philosophical discussion of this topic, at least as it pertains to science, begins with the so-called deductive-nomological (DN). This model has many advocates but unquestionably the most detailed.

The basic idea of the deductive-nomological (DN) model is that explanations have the structure of sound deductive arguments in which a law of nature occurs as an essential premise. One deduces the explanandum, which describes the phenomenon to be explained, from an explaining, consisting of one or more laws, typically supplemented by true sentences about initial conditions. The model is intended to apply both to the explanation of “general regularities” by other laws and the explanation of particular events, although subsequent developments have largely focused on the latter.

The DN model is meant to capture explanation via deduction from deterministic laws and this raises the obvious question of the explanatory status of statistical laws. Much of the appeal of the deductive- nomological (DN) model lies in the undeniable fact that in some areas of science, such as physics, many explanations do seem to involve derivations from laws.It claims that all explanations conform to the requirements of the model, and that everything conforming to those requirements is an explanation.

We need to ask whether these claims are correct and whether the key components of the model such as the notion of a law, are sufficiently clear and well-understood to play the role the model assigns to them. (Machamer & Silberstein, 2002).

Conclusion

Philosophy of Science It’s have a lot of discus on world wild view from different Scientists and Philosopher. It’s a subjective, discover, knowledge.

Understanding the philosophical assumptions that underpin each paradigm and how these assumptions manifest themselves within methodology and methods. Ontological and epistemological consideration can facilitate reflexive learning. For this to flourish further, we must improve the accuracy of definitions, as well as providing a framework which renders concepts accessible. Alerting researchers to this dissension is particularly important because it encourages them to challenge assumptions and premises.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.” The meaning of this quote is that humanity is fundamentally evil. There is a darkness to everyone on this world that is hidden or shown in different ways. In Lord of the Flies, human nature is evil because the boys formed into vicious people and lost all their civilization when they were on a deserted island. In The Dark Knight, human nature is extremely evil because the Joker showed all of Gotham the selfishness and evil in each person.

In Lord of the Flies, Golding proves that all the boy’s decisions on the island show that human nature is evil. Ralph tries to keep the younger boys calm and to not believe there is truly a creature on the island. Ralph shouted in frustration, “Maybe there is a beast… Maybe it’s only us”(Golding 89). The boys start to realize they are losing their minds and then accidentally kill Simon. Their actions show how they were first civilized boys and now they are murderous boys. Overtime, some of the boys start to lose their social norms and loss of identity. Golding explains, “There were no words, and no movements but the tearing of teeth and claws”(Golding 240). Jack and Roger are starting to lose self control and turn into savages. Almost every boy on the island turn to evil and lose all of their civilization after the conch was broken. Their actions show they turned into savages and that humanity is malicious.

In The Dark Knight, Nolan proves that human nature is ultimately terrible. Throughout the film, the Joker proves the city of Gotham is full of selfish and hatred people. Alfred says to Bruce, “Some men just want to watch the world burn” (Nolan 45). This event shows how people are very selfish and care way too much about themselves than others. After the death of Rachel, Harvey wanted revenge on anyone who was in on her death. The Joker says, “You see, in their last moments people show you who they really are”(Nolan 119). Harvey wanted everyone dead who helped the Joker kill Rachel. The Joker just wants to see the people of Gotham to fall into hatred and death. This event proves that human nature is ultimately evil and that Gotham is full of corrupt and wicked people.

Overall, in both stories, humanity does have an evil side. Golding shows how the boys actions lead to terrible decisions and death. Almost every boy turned malicious when they were on a deserted island. The city of Gotham falls to the Jokers command to perform evil actions. Chaos was revealed in both stories in the end. Humans are born to make wicked decisions and be self-centered. Deep down we are naturally attracted to money to make us feel happy and to become selfish beings.

Truth vs reality, a war between fact and perception. the nature of truth to me can be slippery, it has been discussed originally the purity of the truth went fundamentally hand in hand. 20 years ago, documentaries were screaming truth, a way of being educated and informed of the pure “truth”.

Modern-day society believe in what is said, what we hear is what we visualise the world around us, what we see reality as. Modern day Documentaries are proposed to reveal reliable content and a truthful version of sources, recently however underneath these decencies they create unnoticed flaws, an unbalanced weight of the “whole truth” they do not reveal. Causing people to believe , “the directors point of view on gun laws, vaccines and political issues”, as I mentioned before, our perspective on the world is dependent on what we hear. the negative impact of this, is the perception that we cannot depict the true version of reality by not seeing the “whole truth”. Truth vs reality.

Argument 1 (documentaries corrupting purity of truth)

Rudy Giulian stated “Truth isn’t truth” no more. So what is truth, Contextual, time dependant and relied upon our perceptions. How can we define what is with certainty what truth really is, when directors and producers of documentaries are qualified and trusted of telling the truth, their particular agenda but are deceiving others through revealing a one-sided “part truth”.

Oprah employed a phrase “speaking your truth and THE TRUTH’, there was only ever one truth, that wasn’t entitled to peoples opinion on their truth and interpretation. “A Riotous Affair – Cronulla riot”, an embedded documentary 60 minutes released in 2015, where they show a notorious look upon the destruction of Australia day. Was a complete One sided film based on “their truth”. An innocent Australian Man and future wife were suddenly attacked of the streets off Cronulla by a dark-skinned mob. Although the innocent man was severely injured, The Mob’s perspective were never shown. My point is basically this film did not reveal the “whole truth” and 60 minutes accused the mob of destruction, where originally any dark skinned person were badly hurt and or murdered in Cronulla for weeks, dreadful. It is clear producers or directors are so obsessed with “their “perception of the truth to be thoughtful of “the truth”, An impure truth.’ the perception that we cannot depict the true version of reality by not seeing the “whole truth”

(argument 2 – Directors using documentaries for their own benefit)

“bowling for columbine” a documentary showing a controversial look upon American gun laws, was completely based on the director “Michael mores” perception. Where Michael more visits the shocking ease of accessibility to guns in America. Exposing the audience to just how easy it is to access guns in the state. Misleading scenes where Michael receives a gun through him creating a bank account, this was further shown when Michael was staged to undergo a background check and had to travel to a nearby gun store to collect his “fire Arms”. This shows moor’s triumphant attempt of basing the entire film off his insights, more in depth it revealed he didn’t care about His states guns laws, he cared for the fame of himself “Michael Moore”. This clearly represents misleading information that the directors and producers of film are further obsessed with the fame and personal interpretation of “Michael Moore’s” Insights.

Truth vs reality is a concept that 20 years ago the way we perceived truth was pure, and that it seemed like reality. It was once discussed that truth and reality once went essentially hand in hand. Modern-day documentaries have twisted “their truth” entirely to appear like “the truth” and have manipulated our innocent minds to think otherwise. The issue is the perception that we cannot depict the true version of reality by not seeing the “whole truth”, Concept of truth vs reality. In which documentaries are concerned to reveal “their truth” Benefitting the directors and producers. Now, I am not saying that all documentaries are misleading and punish our innocent minds, exemptions of realty are demonstrated throughout many documentaries, for example, David Attenborough. Do you think this man who has 32 honorary degrees, the highest a man to ever hold would be lying to us concerning the behaviour of the wildlife, No. Yes, there are documentaries that uphold the value of truth, however over the years more directors of are reconstructing the meaning of a documentary.