MAN IS BASICALLY EVIL THOMAS HOBBES Excerpt from The Leviathan1 Nature hath made men so equal, in the

faculties of the body and mind as that, thou!h there be found one man sometimes manifestly stron!er in body or of quic"er mind than another, yet #hen all is rec"oned to!ether, the difference bet#een man and man is not so considerable, as than one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to #hich another may not pretend as #ell as he$ %or as to the stren!th of body, the #ea"est has stren!th enou!h to "ill the stron!est, either by secret machination, or by confederacy #ith others that are in the same dan!er #ith himself$ %rom this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attainin! of our ends$ And therefore if any t#o men desire the same thin!, #hich ne&ertheless they cannot both en'oy, they become enemies and in the #ay to their end, #hich is principally their o#n conser&ation, and sometimes their delectation only, endea&our to destroy, or subdue one another$ And from hence it comes to pass that #here an in&ader hath no more to fear than another man(s sin!le po#er if one plant, so#, build, or possess a con&enient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared #ith forces united, to dispossess and depri&e him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty$ And the in&ader a!ain is in the li"e dan!er of another$ And from this diffidence of one another, there is no #ay for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation that is, by force or #iles to master the persons of all men he can, so lon!, till he see no other po#er !reat enou!h to endan!er him) and this is no more than his o#n conser&ation requireth, and is !enerally allo#ed$ Also because there be some, that ta"in! pleasure in contemplatin! their o#n po#er in the acts of conquest, #hich they pursue farther than their security requires if others, that other#ise #ould be !lad to be at ease #ithin modest bounds, should not by in&asion increase their po#er, they #ould not be able lon! time, by standin! only on their defense, to subsist$ And by consequence, such au!mentation of dominion o&er men bein! necessary to a man(s conser&ation, it ou!ht to be allo#ed him$ A!ain, men ha&e no pleasure, but on the contrary a !reat deal of !rief, in "eepin! company, #here there is no po#er able to o&era#e them all$ %or e&ery man loo"eth that his companion should &alue him at the same rate he sets upon himself and upon all si!ns of contempt, or under&aluin!, naturally endea&ors, as far as he dares to extort a !reater &alue from his contemners by dama!e, and from others by the example$ So that in the nature of man, #e find three principal causes of quarrels$ %irst, competition second, diffidence third, !lory$ The first ma"eth men in&ade for !ain the second, for safety and the third, for reputation$ The first use &iolence to ma"e themsel&es masters of other men(s persons, #i&es, children, and cattle the second, to defend them the third, for trifles, as a #ord, a smile, a different opinion, and any other si!n of under&alue, either direct in their persons, or by reflection in their "indred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name$

From Ideas of Human Nature by David P. Barash

Hereby it is manifest that durin! the time men li&e #ithout a common po#er to "eep them all in a#e, they are in that condition #hich is called #ar and such a #ar as is of e&ery man a!ainst e&ery man$ %or war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fi!htin!, but in a tract of time #herein the #ill to contend by battle is sufficiently "no#n, and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of #ar, as it is in the nature of #eather$ %or as the nature of foul #eather lieth not in a sho#er or t#o of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days to!ether so the nature of #ar consisteth not in actual fi!htin!, but in the "no#n disposition thereto, durin! all the time there is no assurance to the contrary$ All other time is peace$ And because the condition of man is a condition of #ar of e&eryone a!ainst e&eryone in #hich case e&eryone is !o&erned by his o#n reason, and there is nothin! he can ma"e use of that may not be a help unto him in preser&in! his life a!ainst his enemies) it follo#eth, that in such a condition e&ery man has a ri!ht to e&erythin! e&en to one another(s body$ And therefore, as lon! as this natural ri!ht of e&ery man to e&erythin! endureth, there can be no security to any man, ho# stron! or #ise soe&er he be, of li&in! out the time #hich nature ordinarily allo#eth men to li&e$

*+E A,E %-N.AMENTA//0 SE/%1SH2 Selection from The Human Condition by Nina ,osenstand 3sycholo!ical e!oism in its modern form is !enerally presented as a &ersion of e&olutionary psycholo!y, but the theory is far more ancient than modern science$ O&er the past century, it has been one of the most fa&oured theories of human nature amon! scholars and laypeople ali"e, and it has been e&o"ed from time to time e&er since the days of Socrates and 3lato 4 but that doesn(t mean it is necessarily true$ Suppose #e could explain any human action by referrin! to a bottom5line selfish strea"6 1n that case, much of the *human comedy2 around us #ould be more understandable$ +hy does a president lie under oath6 +hy do people brea" promises, re&eal other people(s secrets, brea" rules of decency as #ell as the rule of la#6 +hy do people rob each other, molest children, and murder fello# human bein!s6 Because #e are all selfish, deep do#n in the heart of our human nature$ All #e care about is protectin! oursel&es and !ettin! a#ay #ith as much as possible #ithout !ettin! cau!ht 4 ri!ht6 But it doesn(t explain the other side of the human coin) +hy #ould someone 'ump into the unstable rubble of a collapsed buildin! to sa&e a sur&i&or clin!in! to life under the debris6 +hy do people ris" their li&es to sa&e others, #hether they are paid to do it or not, #hether they are life!uards, fire fi!hters and police officers or 'ust 7oe and 7ane 8$ 3ublic6 +hy #ould a !roup of healthy nuns &olunteer as !uinea pi!s for an A1.S &accine in the mid59:;<s #hen little #as "no#n about the disease other than that it al#ays "illed its &ictim6 Most of us #ould ans#er that althou!h humans ha&e the capacity for !reat selfishness, #e also ha&e the capacity for !reat unselfishness$ 3sycholo!ical e!oism has another explanation) E&en the seemin!ly unselfish acts are done out of some fundamental ur!e to ser&e yourself and your o#n interests$ =ranted that #e probably #on(t e&er "no# #hat selfish or self5 interested moti&ation Mother Teresa may ha&e had for spendin! her life sa&in! others in the

slums of >alcutta, but #e can rest assured that there #as one, says the psycholo!ical e!oist) A #ish to atone for past sins6 A #ish to become famous of her unselfishness6 A #ish for a tic"et strai!ht to Hea&en6 Or 'ust a need to feel !ood about #hat she #as doin!6 To most people #ho admire her life(s #or", these su!!estions are preposterous and insultin!, because their impression of her #or" is quite different$ To most of us, she came across as a selfless human bein! the >hristian tradition #ould identify her #or" as charitable, comin! out of a strict !oal of self5abne!ation$ %or the psycholo!ical e!oist, ho#e&er, these interpretations lead us strai!ht to the truth about human nature) +e may not ha&e total insi!ht into exactly #hat ma"es people tic", but #hate&er they do, it in some #ay leads bac" to feelin! !ood or protectin! oneself from feelin! bad$ This is #hat is so de&ilishly attracti&e about psycholo!ical e!oism) 1t has explanations for e&ery human action, and they are al#ays consistent$ +hate&er #e do, #e do it for oursel&es$

MAN IS BASICALLY GOOD 3ETE, ?,O3OT?1N Excerpt from Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution2 1t is e&ident that it #ould be quite contrary to all that #e "no# of nature if men #ere exception to so !eneral rule) if a creature so defenceless as man #as at his be!innin!s should ha&e found his protection and his #ay to pro!ress, not in mutual support, li"e other animals but in a rec"less competition for personal ad&anta!es, #ith no re!ard to the interests of the species$ To a mind accustomed to the idea of unity in nature, such a proposition appears utterly indefensible$ And yet, improbable and unphilosophical as it is, it has ne&er found a lac" of supporters$ There al#ays #ere #riters #ho too" a pessimistic &ie# of man"ind$ They "ne# it, more or less superficially, throu!h their o#n limited experience, they "ne# of history #hat the annalists, al#ays #atchful of #ars, cruelty and oppression, told of it, and little more besides and they concluded that man"ind is nothin! but a loose a!!re!ation of bein!s, al#ays ready to fi!ht #ith each other, and only pre&ented from so doin! by the inter&ention of some authority$ 1t is not possible to study primiti&e man"ind #ithout bein! deeply impressed by the sociability it has displayed since its &ery first steps in life$ Traces of human societies are found in relics of both the oldest and the later stone a!e and, #hen #e come to obser&e the sa&a!es #hose manners of life are still those of Neolithic man, #e find them closely bound to!ether by an extremely ancient clan or!ani@ation #hich enables them to combine their indi&idually #ea" forces, to en'oy life in common, and to pro!ress$ Man is no exception in nature$ He also is sub'ect to the !reat principle of Mutual Aid #hich !rants the best chances of sur&i&al to those #ho best support each other in the stru!!le for life$

From Ideas of Human Nature by David P. Barash

The annalists of old ne&er failed to chronicle the petty #ars and calamities #hich harassed their contemporaries but they paid no attention #hate&er to the life of the masses, althou!h the masses chiefly used to toil peacefully #hile the fe# indul!ed in fi!htin!$ The epic poems, the inscriptions on monuments, the treatise of peace 4 nearly all historical documents bear the same character they deal #ith breaches of peace, not #ith peace itself$ So that the best5intentioned historian unconsciously dra#s a distorted picture of the times he endea&ours to depict and, to restore the real proportion bet#een conflict and union, #e are no# bound to enter into a minute analysis of thousands of small fact and faint indications accidentally preser&ed in the relics of the past$ Sociability and need of mutual aid and support are such inherent parts of human nature that at no time of history can #e disco&er men li&in! in small isolated families, fi!htin! each other for the means of subsistence$ On the contrary, modern research, as #e sa# it in the t#o precedin! chapters, pro&es that since the &ery be!innin! of their prehistoric life men used to a!!lomerate into gentes, clans, or tribes, maintained by an idea of common descent and by #orship of common ancestors$ %or thousands and thousands of years this or!ani@ation has "ept men to!ether, e&en thou!h there #as no authority #hate&er to impose it$ 1t has deeply impressed all subsequent de&elopment of man"ind and #hen the bonds of common descent had been loosened by mi!ration on a !rand scale, #hile the de&elopment of the separated family #ithin the clan itself had destroyed the old unity of the clan, a ne# form of union, territorial in its principle 4 the &illa!e community 4 #as called into existence by the social !enius of man$

*A,E +E =OO. B0 NAT-,E62 Selection from The Human >ondition by Nina ,osenstand 1n reli!ious traditions all o&er 3lanet Earth, from 7udaism to >hristianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and African tribal reli!ions, the &irtue of compassion is tau!ht and held up as a moral ideal$ This doesn(t mean that these traditions belie&e humans really are compassionate, but that #e ou!ht to stri&e to be compassionate, but that #e ou!ht to stri&e to be compassionate and fi!ht a!ainst our more self5preser&in! nature$ Ho#e&er, thin"ers 4 thousands of miles and years apart 4 ha&e enriched their philosophical traditions #ith theories of compassionate human nature as a descripti&e theory$ 1n >hina, Mencius AMen!5@u, BC95D;: B$>$E$E, a student of >onfucius, didn(t merely follo# his teacher in claimin! that humans ou!ht to be compassionate) he held that #e are born compassionate and !ood, but life tends to corrupt the human spirit$ 1t doesn(t mean #e shouldn(t also stri&e to become compassionate, because most of us ha&e lost that initial feelin!$ +hat #e ha&e to do is pay attention to that little inner &oice, our conscience$ Mencius belie&es that, intuiti&ely, #e are still !ood, and if #e loo" in#ard to our deepest nature, #e can recapture that !oodness$ 1f a child has fallen into a #ell, our first instinct is to sa&e it, says Mencius 4 hesitation in the face of other people(s misfortune happens because #e ha&e been corrupted by selfishness$

1n =reece Socrates AFDC5BFCE tau!ht that only i!norance leads to #ron!doin! there is no such thin! as a person #ho does #ron! "no#in!ly$ 1n other #ords, humans may be #ea", emotional bein!s by nature, but they are not e&il$ 1n En!land, .a&id Hume A9C9959CCGE 4 #ho thou!ht of himself as a friend of ,ousseau(s for a #hile, until ,ousseau turned on him 4 a!reed #ith ,ousseau that humans are fundamentally decent creatures #e are only selfish #hen there is somethin! to be !ained from a situation) 1f #e are not personally in&ol&ed in an issue, our natural compassion Aor *fello# feelin!2E rises to the surface$ 1ndeed, our rationality is !enerally employed to ma"e sense out of our emotional responses$ 1n the t#entieth century, the American philosopher ,ichard Taylor 'oined the optimistic chorus by claimin! that all the rational moral systems in the #orld can(t teach us the ri!ht thin! to do, if our hearts ha&en(t told us already) +hat is morally repu!nant to is not that an immoral action doesn(t ma"e sense, but that it is de&oid of compassion$