human nature

[maurice73]

analyze two views on human nature. discuss how any of these explain human relationships  >:(and the level of crime and violence around the world.

[maurice73]

by the way guys i used  hobbes,locke(selfish nature of man (hobbes)&tabula rasaor blank slate (locke))

[Gareth Southwell]

Hi Maurice,

Sounds like an essay title to me!  

It seems like you just have to pick two views. So, off the top of my head, I would choose Darwinism and the religious view. In relation to crime and society, a Darwinist would analyse human behaviour in terms of the struggle for survival, natural selection, etc. So, our animal drives come into conflict with our moral ideas of right and wrong. A challenge for Darwinism would therefore be whether they can account for all human behaviour in this way - perhaps they can't?

On the other hand, a religious perspective (e.g. Christianity) might argue that we all have an inherent capacity to know right from wrong (our God-given conscience) and that we are led astray by temptation to sin (perhaps by the influence of evil beings).

Obviously, there are different versions of both these perspectives. A Darwinist might argue that, whilst natural selection rules the natural world (and determines our drives and natural desires), we do not have to abide by the "law of the jungle" because we are conscious and have choice (unlike non-human animals).

A Christian might argue that, in fact, we are not born with knowledge of right and wrong, and that we have to find out God's will, and determine what He would want us to do.

These are only two perspectives. Others you might choose from are Freudianism, existentialism, Marxism, etc.

A very good book to get you started off is: "Seven Theories of Human Nature" by Leslie Stevenson - though I don't know if it's still available.

Anyway, hope this helps - and good luck!

[maurice73]

it helped in the sense that at least i was on the right track, 'somewhat' thanx!!!

[Gareth Southwell]

Well, you could concentrate on Hobbes and Locke if you wanted. I'm assuming that you are doing this essay as part of a course, and that you should have a reading list (or have studied certain views of human nature already). Therefore, I would choose two views from that information.

If you chose Locke and Hobbes, then you have to make it clear how their philosophy leads to a detailed view of human nature. For instance, Locke's concept of the mind as a tabula rasa tells us how knowledge is acquired, but it doesn't necessarily tell us much about human nature or instinct. It's tempting to assume that Locke is referring to human nature as a blank slate - but is he? Perhaps he is just referring to knowledge? You would need to be clear on this point.

If you chose Locke, then a similar thing is true: why does he think that life is "nast, brutish and short"? You would have to be clear what philosophical reasons Hobbes has for thinking this. To be honest, I'm not that familiiar with Hobbes, but if he is one of the views you have studied, then you will probably know why he thought as he did.

Another possibility for you is to take these two views as representations of other, modern views. So, Locke could be seen as a forerunner of Behaviourism (the idea that all our behaviour can be modified or conditioned); Hobbes could be linked to certain forms of Darwinism and/or Freudianism.

Anyway, I'm not trying to overwhelm you with options! I would do a little bit of reading around, and then choose two that you think you can get your teeth into.

All the best.