The Orgins of the "Human Nature" myth?

[Hexen]

I wonder where the whole "humans are naturally short-sided/selfish/greedy" claim originated from? From what philosopher/thank tank/etc?

[The Man]

I think it was Ludwig Von Mises or one of his followers? I'm not 100% sure who did it, by I do know it really is just a cheap saying, that people think will get them out of an argument instantly.

[ChrisK]

The human nature argument is the capitalist form of the natural law argument. This transition created a secular justification for class society, which used to be "Because God says so".

[Red_Struggle]

It's same the same argument that's been used for monarchs as well "natural hierarchy," "divine right," etc.. You can use the human nature argument to defend whatever injustice you want.

[Hexen]

Yes it's actually frustrating that most people outside of RevLeft normally retort to this argument almost everytime I bring up about socialism/communism at other forums and even comments on Ars Techinca, and such.

I'm just getting fed up with this stupidity & apathy as if I feel there isn't going to be a Revolution if most people are continuing mislead to believe in this. Sure they like to complain about society but they use the "human nature" myth after words...As if their unknowingly submitting to the Capitalist system.

[gestalt]

It goes back much further than Mises, some could argue to the origin of class society.

As far as modern thought, keep in mind that the Enlightenment coincided with the emergence of capitalism and these ideas provided a dignified justification for underlying material conditions which spearheaded many bourgeois revolutions. Thus, you had philosophers like Kant, Hobbes and others arguing that humans were naturally selfish. Further misinterpretations and misappropriations of Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, et al. lend more credence to this cretinous idea.

What modern capitalist apologists, right libertarians, Randroid objectivists, whathaveyou fail to mention when drawing from this tradition is that each of these thinkers argued that this self-interest needs to be restrained, whether by rational action, the state or other means. E.g., it was something to be overcome, not celebrated.

Of course Marx and others in recent work obliterated this concept by demonstrating that anything one could define as "human nature" emerges from social relations.

[Maximum Marxist]

I hear this arguement alot and when I was at school and talking to someone they brought this up. What would be a good counter arguement against this defence?

[Tablo]

Some influence may have been social Darwinism.

[Hammilton]

Of course Marx and others in recent work obliterated this concept by demonstrating that anything one could define as "human nature" emerges from social relations.

Obliterated? Marx was writing without the benefit of modern science. We know well that some things are hardwired into our brains, making it more or less impossible cease via social intervention. I'm coming to this as a scientist first, which may give me a different view of the issue.

Is it in our biological nature to be greedy? Absolutely. It doesn't take much effort to come up with a handful of reasons we'd (and all animals in some shape, really) have evolved this. Can we be taught not to be greedy? Some people seem to be able to, but everyone? Probably not.

The question isn't if mankind has some inherent capacity for greed and self-preservation at the expense of others, it's whether we can- or really, should- fight this urge and become better, more moral people. I doubt many here would feel that we shouldn't.

Those who argue that we shouldn't, or can't beat our baser instincts are selling humanity short. Those who believe that if only society was different we'd be different are only right to an extent, and look for a lazy answer, in my opinion (which in this matter is really only that). Sociology doesn't begin to explain everything.

[gestalt]

Darwin derived the concept of natural selection without Mendelian genetics, so I do not accept your first premise as a refutation if you intended it to be. In the century since Marx, others have advanced similar theories in everything from sociobiology to neuroanthropology to developmental psychology. While on the subject, Darwin posited that human evolution was a result of a combination of biological factors and the development of the moral sense, e.g., social instincts, kinship, empathy, altruism, etc.

Coming at this from a non-biological background, there seems to be an alarming trend to elevate the gene to a deterministic quasi-deity. So much so that some cannot see the forest for the trees, or the species for the DNA. This is evident in misreadings of the selfish gene theory, which provides a justification for a sort of neo-Social Darwinism. Even Dawkins provides evidence that (reciprocal) altruism is often more advantageous to survival.

We have to be careful not to convolute evolutionary instincts for gene preservation with "selfishness" or "greed." How do we even empirically measure those? Would it be possible to have a control group without removing individuals from all social interaction? Due to advances in material reality, a good portion of humanity is removed from the basic drive for mass procreation, so much so that some abstain from it completely. Especially in the modern era, the most beneficial advances for the species as a whole have been the result of cooperation rather than competition, in the name of altruism rather than egoism.

In this dichotomy between nature versus nurture it is time to admit there is strong evidence for a verdict of both, tending towards the latter in my interpretation. Of course we could both be completely off-base and isn't that the fun of it?

[Zero101]

They also say it's human nature to fight and be at war with each other comrade, but are we all constantly violent soldiers literally at each others throats? This part of our nature has been tamed (now we're mostly just fat apologetic instruments and comodities), the only thing left is to tame our greed. (Speaking from an American standpoint):confused:

[Kenco Smooth]

Obliterated? Marx was writing without the benefit of modern science. We know well that some things are hardwired into our brains, making it more or less impossible cease via social intervention. I'm coming to this as a scientist first, which may give me a different view of the issue.

Is it in our biological nature to be greedy? Absolutely. It doesn't take much effort to come up with a handful of reasons we'd (and all animals in some shape, really) have evolved this. Can we be taught not to be greedy? Some people seem to be able to, but everyone? Probably not.

The question isn't if mankind has some inherent capacity for greed and self-preservation at the expense of others, it's whether we can- or really, should- fight this urge and become better, more moral people. I doubt many here would feel that we shouldn't.

Those who argue that we shouldn't, or can't beat our baser instincts are selling humanity short. Those who believe that if only society was different we'd be different are only right to an extent, and look for a lazy answer, in my opinion (which in this matter is really only that). Sociology doesn't begin to explain everything.

Wow, this is amazingly of base.

Firstly it's really not clear certain behaviour is hard wired. The bases of logical processes, perception and such are but beyond that nothing is set in stone.

As for your reasons for animals to have evolved selfishly. Take a look at modern medicine, pack behaviour in dogs, stunning organisation amongst the insect kingdom. If we're handing a determinate influence to our genes then cooperative behaviour seems to wield just as much, if not more power, than selfish behaviour.

Evolutionary human psychology is a complete joke when applied to anything less general than the workings of perception, language and other such universal factors. And even then it seriously struggles to back itself up with anything more than speculation.

[caramelpence]

There is quite a good discussion of the origins of bourgeois hyper-individualism at the beginning of Lichtheim's history of socialism - if I remember correctly the author also draws attention to the role of Benthamite utilitarianism and Malthusianism as important points of ideological reference for the supporters of early capitalism.

Having said that, I feel it's important not to fall into the trap of thinking that the concept of human nature should always be straightforwardly linked to the justification of capitalism, because even though every single socialist has doubtless encountered the argument about socialism being rendered impossible by human nature, Marx did not believe that human beings are entirely the products of different sets of social conditions, he also had a conception of human nature - he believed that the problem with traditional materialism was that it saw man as having only a contemplative position in relation to the natural and social worlds, rather than recognizing that man is constantly engaged in activities that transform the world around him, and that he himself is transformed in the process of entering into those activities. Marx's critique of Bentham in Capital is precisely that Bentham ignored the importance of human nature (and the potential for that nature to be distorted) by taking the behavior of the English petty-bourgeoisie, based around the pursuit of a highly underdeveloped concept of happiness, as a suitable basis for ethics and moral philosophy.

[chegitz guevara]

The human nature myth goes back a long way. The Bible even has something to say on the subject. Of course, lots of philosophers had an opinion.

For our purposes of modern political thought, the human nature myth can be traced to Thomas Hobbes and is work, Leviathan. In it he posits that the life of man in nature is nasty, brutish, and short. Of course, his ideas came during the period raound the English Civil War and its aftermath. It's hardly surprising. He didn't have the final say on the matter.

John Locke later disputed Hobbe's position, and after him, Jean-Jacques Rousseau completely contradicted him, claiming that humans were innately good, and the it was society which ground us down.

Marx, coming at the end of the Enlightenment, was influenced by this whole movement of thought.

In the end, most folks claim human nature is whatever it needs to be in order to justify their politics.

[Red_Xan]

This is a problem that I struggle with in explaining socialism/communism to people. They never believe that people can be taught to be egalitarian and unselfish. It's ingrained in them from birth through church, school, parent's teachings, etc.

[Hexen]

This is a problem that I struggle with in explaining socialism/communism to people. They never believe that people can be taught to be egalitarian and unselfish. It's ingrained in them from birth through church, school, parent's teachings, etc.

Not to mention even our own video/computer games/films/comic books/novels/other fiction also reinforces this universal deceit.

Also everytime they use this argument, I honestly get more and more pessimistic as if I feel that this is probably the main core reason why there won't be a revolution in the foreseeable future as if I feel Capitalism has already won via this apathy (as I'm starting to think that apathy is how capitalism functions). I hope I'm wrong though.

[chegitz guevara]

This is a problem that I struggle with in explaining socialism/communism to people. They never believe that people can be taught to be egalitarian and unselfish. It's ingrained in them from birth through church, school, parent's teachings, etc.

Then what you need to do is study primitive human societies, so you can point out that was normal human behavior for about three million years.

[Unclebananahead]

Then what you need to do is study primitive human societies, so you can point out that was normal human behavior for about three million years.

Three million years? Wait, haven't anatomically modern humans only been around for 195,000 years or so?

[hatzel]

Three million years? Wait, haven't anatomically modern humans only been around for 195,000 years or so?

It doesn't matter when we become anatomically modern humans. Dogs supposedly have an innate nature, too, which varies according to the breed, and people could say the same of monkeys. We didn't suddenly change one day when we become 'modern', nor was all that based on nothing. So yes, we can look at typical human behavior and social organisation for a lot longer than just a few hundred thousand years...