Is human nature inherently good or evil, or is it shaped by social influences?

This article explores the question of whether human nature is inherently good or evil, or whether morality and selfishness are shaped by our social environment, and considers the nature of good and evil based on various opinions from philosophers and thinkers.

 

Is human nature good or evil? It’s not an easy question to answer. Some people do good deeds, such as donating money or volunteering to help others in need, while others do evil deeds, such as deliberately avoiding military service, to break the law for their own benefit. Very few people can confidently say that they are good people. And certainly no one would consider themselves evil. Famous philosophers in the West and scholars in ancient China are divided on this question. Are we naturally good people? Or are we born bad? I sought to answer this question in three books I recently read, all of which have different opinions on human nature and good and evil.
The first book I read was The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian thinker at the end of the Renaissance. In order to protect Italy from the threat of invasion by powerful nations like England and France, Machiavelli argued that Italy should be unified under a monarch with strong leadership, and The Prince is the guidebook that laid out the criteria. The book is essentially based on the theory of vocalization. Machiavelli warns that rulers must be wary of hypocrisy among their subjects, arguing that it’s easy for people to say they’re loyal when it’s safe, but when their lives are threatened, it’s hard to find people who are committed. He also argues that it’s better to use firm punishment rather than kindness or trust to keep people in line. These arguments, which may seem radical at first glance, are based on the idea that humans are infinitely selfish and hypocritical. However, I don’t think humans are always evil. For example, Zhuge Liang, a talented leader of the Chou Dynasty in China, could have taken over the country after Liu Bei’s death, but he remained loyal to Liu Bei and served the Chou Dynasty for the rest of his life, even when he was not in control. Based on the story, there is no reason why Zhuge Liang shouldn’t have revealed his selfish nature and taken over the country. But he didn’t, which shows that there is a clear flaw in the argument that humans are inherently evil. Steve Jobs, a famous leader in the modern world, also led his employees through communicative leadership, not through strong control. These examples show that humans are not always hypocritical and selfish. So why did Machiavelli come to view the people as inherently evil?
The 20th-century American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s book Moral Man and Immoral Society offers a collective perspective on why humans have evil attitudes. In 20th-century America, Niebuhr’s optimism that human problems could be solved through a rational, scientific approach was widespread, and Niebuhr reacted to this optimism with a realist philosophy. He first questioned human morality, concluding that while individuals can be moral, groups cannot be moral. Individual humans consider the interests of others as well as their own, and sometimes prioritize the interests of others over their own. We have the capacity for empathy, which allows us to feel the pain of others as if it were our own, and we can also use our rational faculties to grasp ideas of justice. However, Niebuhr argues that there are limits to the human mind and imagination, and that when we form groups, our ability to consider the interests of others is reduced, our empathy is diminished, and our loyalties are directed solely to our own group due to the inherent cohesion of the group. Therefore, humans in groups become selfish by pursuing only their own group’s interests in conflicts of interest due to their loyalty to their group. This claim of collective selfishness reminds me of the behavior of the bereaved families after the Sewol ferry disaster in South Korea. When they were individuals, they were just poor people who lost their families in a tragic accident, but when they formed a group called “Sewol bereaved families,” selfishness began to appear. They made unrealistic demands that were purely based on their own interests, such as special admission to universities and appointment of doctors, and they also showed selfishness by forcing the search for missing persons even though two divers had lost their lives. When they were individuals, they were able to think rationally according to the country’s situation and circumstances, but when they formed a group, they showed selfishness by pursuing their own interests without considering the interests of people outside the group.
In addition to Nieber’s argument, French social psychologist Laurent Berg’s book, Why Moral People Make Bad Societies, interprets human morality in terms of social psychology. At the core of his argument is the idea that our need for social inclusion drives moral and immoral behavior. In general, humans are afraid of being ostracized and find joy and satisfaction in affirming their place in a group. In other words, relationships with others and the way they see us are very important factors in reinforcing our moral or immoral tendencies. The desire to be accepted by the members of one’s own group sometimes leads humans to perform incredible acts of altruism, and conversely, to harm other groups in order to be accepted by them. Laurent Begg’s argument also connects to Hannah Arendt’s idea of the “banality of evil”. Like Hannah Arendt’s argument that ordinary people, not sociopaths or fanatics, can commit evil acts, it is not because they have a special nature that they do good or evil. As the phrase “social animal” symbolizes, we have a primal need to belong, and this need drives us to do altruistic good deeds or selfish evil deeds. An example of this need to belong is the right wing of the internet. The people who use right-wing sites are not character flaws; they’re just people like everyone else, but their need to belong and validate their presence within a community is causing huge social problems. They feel free to personally insult famous celebrities and politicians, and they commit unimaginable acts like posting a picture of their paternal grandfather who committed suicide just because they want attention from their community. This is an extreme example of what can happen when the desire to belong is misplaced.
After reading the three books, I was able to draw my own personal conclusions about good and evil. The goodness (morality) and evil (immorality) of human beings is more a result of human sociality than nature, and it is difficult for individual morality and rational judgment to prevent selfish behavior in groups. Especially in modern society, where groups are increasingly formed on the Internet, characterized by anonymity, selfishness and evil behavior are likely to become a more serious problem. However, there is a silver lining. Considering that human beings are not inherently evil as Machiavelli thought, and that evil behavior arises from conflicting interests among groups, if we can control and manage it well through law and order, we can create a society that focuses more on good deeds.