At the
heart of every philosophy is a set of assumptions or conclusions on the nature
of human beings and what guides their thoughts and behaviors. It is perhaps too simplistic to dichotomize views
on human nature, but as part of my own general view on humanity I understand
that we understand our world through categorization, so on some level lines
must be drawn, even on things which may not have a clear delineation of one
position to the next.
Typically,
discussions of human nature revolve around whether we are “good” or “bad” by
nature; that we are an inherently moral race is posited by both of these
positions. In one (what I would call a
humanist position), humans are a beneficent race, perverted by unfortunate
situations, and in the other (a position held by many of the inheritors of the
Abrahamic tradition) humans are depraved, able to move beyond their sinful
nature only through a powerful moral will or the assistance of God. However, when
applying these to the task of organizing human action, either through
government or markets, we find them lacking, especially since the proponents of
each of these simplifications tend to be lumped into political organizations
with the opposite application thereof.
Humanists, who believe in a fundamentally “good” man (you may, as I
have, heard again and again of having “faith” in humanity), tend to be
concentrated in socialist-leaning political parties (the American Democrat
party, for instance) which use their political power to restrict man,
disallowing him to be free and good.
Religious types, who believe in a fundamentally “bad” humanity tend to
be concentrated in liberal-leaning political parties (the American Republican
party), which allow man to be freely bad.
A
dichotomy that I find more appealing in this application is explored in Thomas
Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions, a thorough categorization and
application of political philosophy into two “visions”: the constrained and the
unconstrained. In the constrained vision,
also referred to by humanities scholars and political philosophers Bruce
Thornton and Victor Davis Hanson as man’s “tragic” nature, humans nature is
fundamentally flawed, but is also unchanging, so whatever progress man may make
technologically or economically, he still remains with the same moral
limitations. The constrained man is not
necessarily “good” or “bad,” but is essentially incapable of doing good for the
human race directly. He is too limited
in his moral capabilities, too limited in his understanding of others, and too
limited in his skill set to hope to organize or guide the entire race; he must
instead be content to guide himself and care for the limited number of people
in his life. Likewise when looking at
government, the constrained vision recognizes that no policy or government
action, since these are essentially human actions, cannot be perfect or perfectible,
and so the best any human can hope to create is a prudent trade-off. That, despite whatever he may intend, every
action has negative unintended consequences.
Those who believe in a tragic world view are skeptical of those in
power, understanding that because of man’s limitations he is incapable of
making perfect decisions and granting him power over others will only reveal
these flaws on a larger scale.
The unconstrained
vision does not concede that man’s nature is either flawed or fixed, but that
man is capable of evolving morally and is in fact doing so, and also that at
some point in the future man’s moral shortcomings will be either severely
reduced or eliminated. The unconstrained
man, when he is fully rational and reasoning, is fundamentally “good,” and is
also likewise capable of doing good directly, either as an individual or
through the use of government. The flaws
perceived in men are also viewed as the result of a lack of reasoning,
education, or rationality, and that so long as man has been educated so as to
be fully rational, he will always choose what is morally good. The unconstrained man is also moving forward,
improving the state of his countrymen, or perhaps the whole race. He is not content to look upon poverty,
disease, and war as inevitable results of man’s flawed nature; instead, he
seeks to correct these flaws, hoping for a time in the future of equality and
peace. So, when looking at government,
the unconstrained man sees a tool for alleviating the flaws he sees, and each
policy that takes a step toward fixing the world is viewed as righteous;
unintended consequences are not relevant to a decision that is fundamentally
the moral choice in his mind. Inevitably
some people will be hurt along the way, but those sacrifices are justified in
context of what the collective as a whole will be able to achieve. He rejects the age-old saying that “the road
to hell is paved with good intentions,” knowing that good intentions and
sincerity to the cause are indispensable prerequisites to forging effective policy.
Given
these two extremes, we see that those who view mankind as “bad” fit more into
the category of the constrained vision, and likewise those who view humanity as
“good” fit in the other. The American parities are not perfect expressions of
either of these, but when creating a philosophical base for yourself, starting
with the assumptions revolving around the nature of human existence is a great
place to start. Those who know me best
know that I have a very tragic view of man, informed by my practical experience
and observations as well as by my religious beliefs. Perhaps in the future I will do some direct
application of these to specific issues, showing how my vision of man leads me
to my particular conclusions. Until
then, question for yourself the nature of our being.
No comments:
Post a Comment