Human Nature and Instincts: Theories and Principles

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.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Argument for and against human nature
Validity of human instincts
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Humanity can best be described by the special characters and personality that exist amongst the human race. Varied scholars and psychologists have over the years developed a special interest in studying how different people act, react and behave under similar situations. From these studies, it has been conclusively determined that situations in which similar behaviors and responses are exhibited appear to be common for all people (Dougall, 2008). These attributes have been summarized into one general term: human nature. This paper shall set out to provide a detailed exploration of the theories and principles that best explain the existence or lack thereof of human nature. From these discussions, we shall be able to determine whether the concept of human instinct does exist or not.

Argument for and against human nature

Dewey (2007) proposes that the term “human nature” refers to the inbuilt differentiated characteristics that human beings tend to have as regarding to thoughts, feelings and behavior. The author claims that human nature is innate and fixed and cannot therefore be altered by others or by situations affecting our lives. Fear, happiness, greed and love are feelings common in all human beings and are not taught but activated through the nurturing process. In addition to this, Dewey (2007) further asserts that it is common and perfectly natural for humans to have wants and needs. The presence of these two aspects consequently fosters feelings of greed, selfishness and the desire to help one another.

However, the concept of human nature is not universally accepted as can be demonstrated by Evans (2004) who argues for the Karl Marx’s theory of human nature which assumes that human beings are a blank slate at birth with no thoughts or feelings. Marx claimed that the character and personality that human beings posses are inducted in them through the process of socialization and civilization. He claimed that if a child is born in a violent time, he will grow up to be a violent man and if a child is born in a peaceful environment, he will undoubtedly be an advocate for peace. According to this theory, Marx asserts that human nature is developed through our life experiences and is not inborn as Dewey states (Evans, 2004).

In an interview carried out by Kate Soper (1998), Noam Chomsky reiterates that the political, social, cultural and religious stance that one takes is based on the conception of human nature. She argues that decisions made on these aspects are derived from human wants and potential which constitute to human nature. Chomsky continues by saying that through history, people like Genghis Khan, Bill gates, the Nazis and even Jesus justify their actions through the fundamental principle a common good for all (Soper, 1998). This means that they did what they did not for their personal gain but in order to help others and make a difference. This principal is true because the desire to make a difference is within us as a human race. It is a basic want, and we all have a potential to do so. This undoubtedly justifies the existence human nature.

On the other hand, most pre-modernists contest this argument by asserting that human nature has no effect on our mental make up, our wants, values and knowledge. They claim that a child born and raised in New York will develop a different way of thinking separate from a child raised amongst the Amazon tribes’ people. They argue that this is because every human being constructs a complex mental framework of coping with the environment they are in based on the challenges and phenomenon that they are dully exposed to. This goes to show that human nature does not exist and even if it did, it would have little to no impact on our continual survival, ability to gain knowledge, values and aspirations.

Validity of human instincts

The perception of morality has been contested to vary from person to person (Lemetti & Piirimäe, 2007). As such, what one person deems as immoral may be ethical to another person and vise versa. One of the prominent 19^th century thinkers, Hobbes, theorized that human beings are naturally evil and as such, require some sort of governance to monitor and control their actions (Lemetti & Piirimäe, 2007). This fact can be reinforced when one takes a look at the situation in places like the Middle East where due to lack of governance, the states have been reduced to a state of chaos and war. Additionally, our ability to determine what is good or evil is perfectly natural but the decision making structure as pertaining to these aspects is instinctual. Dougall (2008) defines instincts as, “Natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary, or unreasoning prompting to any mode of action, whether bodily, or mental, without a distinct apprehension of the end or object to be accomplished.” Human instincts are inborn and are used to facilitate our survival. According to Dougall (2008), the environment in which a person stays does not push him to doing good or evil. Such decisions are inclined to their need for survival which is at most times called the “survival instincts”. Naturally, human beings will at all times do what they deem best for themselves and those that they love.

On the same note, man’s desire to procreate, socialize, protect those close to them, eat, sleep and even feel are purely instinctual and geared towards their survival. This means that human instincts do exist and are indeed the driving force to our existence and survival in a dynamic and highly competitive society. The destruction brought about by the hurricane Katrina show cased how human nature and instincts co-exist within the society. On one hand, governments as well as private individuals dedicated their time and resources to help those that were affected by the hurricane. On the other hand, there were other people who saw an opportunity in that chaotic time and pretended to be refugees so that they could get government aid, while others resulted into looting and robbing off the little that was left, others took more than they actually needed for themselves and their families. This disaster perfectly demonstrates how naturally, some people came out to help those in need and to make a difference while others instinctively resulted into theft and vandalism in a bid to ensure their survival through the troubling time.

Conclusion

This paper by large demonstrates that there is overwhelming evidence that human instincts do exist and play a pivotal role in the survival of the human race. In addition to this, human needs and wants despite their differences are common to all people and are developed through the different situations and circumstances that we often find ourselves in. From the discussions presented herein, we can conclude that the understanding and existence of human nature is a complex issue and vary from person to person and as a result no definite theory or principle can best answer the questions that evolve around this issue.

References

Dewey, J. (2007). Human Nature and Conduct – An Introduction to Social Psychology. USA: READ BOOKS.

Dougall, W, M. (2008). An Introduction to Social Psychology. READ BOOKS.

Evans, M. (2004). Karl Marx. USA: Routledge

Lemetti, J & Piirimäe, E. (2007). Human nature as the basis of morality and society in early modern philosophy. Philosophical Society of Finland.

Soper, K. (1998). On Human Nature. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Human Nature and Instincts: Theories and Principles

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)