The Nature of Humans and the State of Nature

[ImCoolBeans]

The state of nature is a primitive state that is not influenced by civilization. In the state of nature, you would have not surrendered any of your rights to a government, seeing as there is no governing body in this state.

John Locke articulates that humans are born with a tabula rasa (clean slate), meaning that we are neither good nor bad, and that our soul is later marked as either good or evil depending on our actions as life goes on. This implies that we have the conscious power to decide whether or not we want to do good or evil.

Thomas Hobbes' philosophy states that humans are inherently bad in the state of nature, and therefore we must surrender certain rights to be a part of a civilization, where there is a governing body to protect them and more or less make to sure that they keep you in check.

Do you believe that humans are inherently good, bad or are we born with a tabula rasa?

Locke and Hobbes are just two examples of philosophers who have attempted to explain human nature, they are two of the more "famous" philosophers and have profound differences in their philosophies.

[Harry Smith]

This is actually very interesting, the current book I'm reading about the conflict into the Congo called Dancing in the face of monsters talks about the many different crimes (rape,murder etc) and how the leaders simply saw it as the nature of warfare and were no more sadistic or evil than others.

I think that everyone has the capacity for evil acts due to a sort of multiplier effect-one action leads to another and soon your past the point of return.

[Miserabilia]

Good and bad doesn't really exist, whether someone is good or bad is determined by the people around them.
I think everyone is born differently, but not inherently "good" or "evil"

[sqishy]

I think it's mostly a clean slate, what happens to us and where we happen to live, shapes our lives. But it's this nature versus nuture idea and both are probably involved.
I don't know it's a grey area for me.

[Tarannosaurus]

I think tabula rasa, we start with a clean slate and can decide what we want to do (good or evil) in our lives.

[Canadian Dream]

It depends on what good or bad is in the state of nature. I would say we are born with tabula rasa and that therefore external influences shape our desires and goals in life. If we were inherently bad or good, there would be much less conflict say between environmentalists and giant corporations, in fact our goals would be quite similar. Conflict is part of human nature, and that's because external effects vary from one individual to an other.

[Typhlosion]

By nature, humans are not evil, bad-willed or 'good'. If they were bad, why has our species survived 300k years?

They are selfish. On most cases we do start with a clean slate on evil, not selfishness. Society shapes a human's traits, one way or another, but the core is still selfish. Not that we can't be selfless, but we do have a bias against it.

(And enter a left-wing saying that capitalism is selfish and that society-dependent constructions are superior as they go beyond human nature!)

[Vlerchan]

Society shapes a human's traits, one way or another, but the core is still selfish. Not that we can't be selfless, but we do have a bias against it.

Please provide verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

The Left-Wing.

[The Trendy Wolf]

The state of nature is a primitive state that is not influenced by civilization. In the state of nature, you would have not surrendered any of your rights to a government, seeing as there is no governing body in this state.

John Locke articulates that humans are born with a tabula rasa (clean slate), meaning that we are neither good nor bad, and that our soul is later marked as either good or evil depending on our actions as life goes on. This implies that we have the conscious power to decide whether or not we want to do good or evil.

Thomas Hobbes' philosophy states that humans are inherently bad in the state of nature, and therefore we must surrender certain rights to be a part of a civilization, where there is a governing body to protect them and more or less make to sure that they keep you in check.

Do you believe that humans are inherently good, bad or are we born with a tabula rasa?

Locke and Hobbes are just two examples of philosophers who have attempted to explain human nature, they are two of the more "famous" philosophers and have profound differences in their philosophies.

Humans are all born with a particular selfishness, as every living being is. Humans naturally do what is best for themselves, but whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion because caring for one's self is necessary for every being to live in the first place. We eventually learn to have more sympathy for others after we consider the fact that they feel the same feelings and pain that we do.

No living being is born 'bad' to be truthful, but we are not born 'good' either, as such terms are socially decided. We do not know, existentially speaking, what is good or bad in our universe.

I must agree with John Locke's beliefs more so than Hobbes', mainly because all living things, in my opinion, have infinite potential when given life, and if one being was to be born 'bad', then this would disagree with nearly every other philosophy out there. Humans may be raised to be, as Hobbes describes it, 'bad.' However, humans are not born good nor bad.

[Miserabilia]

Humans are all born with a particular selfishness, as every living being is. Humans naturally do what is best for themselves, but whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion because caring for one's self is necessary for every being to live in the first place. We eventually learn to have more sympathy for others after we consider the fact that they feel the same feelings and pain that we do.

No living being is born 'bad' to be truthful, but we are not born 'good' either, as such terms are socially decided. We do not know, existentially speaking, what is good or bad in our universe.

I must agree with John Locke's beliefs more so than Hobbes', mainly because all living things, in my opinion, have infinite potential when given life, and if one being was to be born 'bad', then this would disagree with nearly every other philosophy out there. Humans may be raised to be, as Hobbes describes it, 'bad.' However, humans are not born good nor bad.

I aggree. Nobody is born "good' or "bad", but the urge to live itself causes a certain selfishness