THE STRUCTURE
● Introduction: Give basic information about human nature.
● The Body:
○ Mention the positive human nature by Kant, Aristotle, Locke etc.
○ Mention the negative human nature by Hobbes.
○ Write about the role of circumstances in the morality of humans; also mention Heinz’s Dilemma.
○ Write about how humans can go more moral in negative circumstances.
● Conclusion: Write how character is tested in bad circumstances and how being immoral in bad circumstances is not justified.
Ans. Human nature has been considered positive or negative by scholars at different times in history. Philosophers have categorized human nature based on their capacity to reason and ability to understand.
Human nature is considered moral or positive by Aristotle, Immanuel Kant and John Locke; where Aristotle calls humans to be the ethical animal which means he considers humans to be moral, but on the contrary, human nature has also been considered immoral or negative by Hobbes, who considers human nature to be selfish, nasty and brutish.
Circumstances play a major role in the morality of humans; even a moral human can go immoral when he’s in the clutches of grave circumstances. For instance, in Heinz’s dilemma, the man was required to steal the medicines to save the life of his wife. Factors of determinants in many circumstances become so critical that immorality becomes morality, as saving life in Heinz’s dilemma was more important than being moral and not stealing.
On the contrary, it’s not imperative for a human to go immoral or unethical due to negative circumstances; human also becomes more ethical and moral in such conditions. Character is tested in difficult situations; people have also died to protect the truth. For instance, Socrates was executed for protecting the truth, Bhagat Singh also laid his life to protect the truth. Numerous whistleblowers lost their lives in the course of protecting the truth like, Satyendra Dubey, who tried to expose the scam in the Golden Quadrilateral project.
There can be hundreds of examples on both sides of the view that:
1. Human is inherently moral.
2. Human is not inherently moral.
However, the overwhelming view goes with the first view that is why society has undercurrent of improving itself through continuous churning. That is why there is friction and conflicts in society still, relative level of stability and order.
Conclusion: People’s resolve has also increased in difficult situations; therefore, it’s not incorrect to call human nature moral. There are numerous determinants of human nature which influence morality, out of which circumstance is one of the significant factors. Character is tested in bad circumstances, justifying immoral actions due to circumstantial conditions is not correct. Human should try to be moral in all times irrespective of the underlying situation. That is why character has been given so much importance including by the virtue ethics.
Spread the Word