This blog post examines various philosophical perspectives on human nature and explores the essence of good and evil through the theories of Machiavelli, Niebuhr, and Vegueta. It offers profound reflection on human nature.
Is human nature good or evil? It’s difficult to answer easily. While some people perform good deeds like helping those in need through donations or volunteering, others commit evil acts like deliberately evading military service, breaking the law solely for personal gain. Very few people can confidently say they are good. Of course, no one would consider themselves evil either. Even renowned Western philosophers and ancient Chinese Confucian scholars have differing opinions on this matter. Are we inherently good people? Or are we born inherently evil? The author sought answers to this question in three books recently read, each containing diverse perspectives on human nature and the nature of good and evil.
The first book I read was The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, an Italian thinker from the late Renaissance. Facing the threat of invasion by powerful nations like England and France, Machiavelli argued that Italy must be unified under a strong leader. The Prince serves as his guidebook outlining the criteria for such a ruler. This book fundamentally rests on the theory of human depravity. Machiavelli warns that a prince must guard against the people’s hypocrisy, arguing that while anyone can easily pledge loyalty in times of safety, finding truly devoted subjects becomes difficult when lives are genuinely threatened. He further contends that in leading the people, it is more effective to firmly establish order and control them through certain punishment rather than through kindness or faithfulness. These arguments, which may seem extreme at first glance, are grounded in the view that humans are infinitely selfish and hypocritical beings. However, it is unreasonable to always see humans as inherently evil. For example, Zhuge Liang, a talented figure from the state of Shu in China, could have overthrown the incompetent Liu Shan and taken the country after Liu Bei’s death. Yet, even without strong control, he upheld his loyalty to Liu Bei and devoted his entire life to Shu. If we adhere to the doctrine of innate evil, there would have been no reason for Zhuge Liang not to reveal his selfish nature and seize the kingdom. Yet he did not, demonstrating a clear flaw in the claim that human nature is inherently evil. Steve Jobs, a renowned leader in modern society, also guided his employees through communicative leadership rather than strong control. Considering these examples, it is impossible to view humans as always hypocritical and selfish beings. So why did Machiavelli come to regard the masses as possessing an evil essence?
The 20th-century American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s work The Moral Man and Immoral Society interprets why humans adopt evil attitudes from a collective perspective. During Niebuhr’s time in 20th-century America, optimism prevailed that human problems could be solved through rational and scientific approaches. Niebuhr countered this optimism by proposing a realist philosophy. He first questioned human morality, concluding that while individuals can be moral, groups cannot. Individual humans consider not only their own interests but also those of others, sometimes prioritizing others’ interests above their own. Humans possess empathy, the ability to feel others’ suffering as their own through imagination, and can grasp concepts of justice through rational capacity. However, Niebuhr noted that the human mind and imagination have limitations. He argued that when forming a group, the ability to consider others’ interests diminishes, empathy weakens, and loyalty becomes directed solely toward one’s own group due to the group’s inherent cohesion. Therefore, individuals within a group, driven by loyalty to their own group, become selfish, pursuing only their group’s interests during conflicts of interest. Observing this argument about collective selfishness, I recalled the behavior of the bereaved families after South Korea’s Sewol ferry disaster. When they were individuals, they were simply pitiful people who had lost family members in a tragic accident. However, once they formed a single group called the ‘Sewol bereaved families,’ selfishness began to emerge. They made unrealistic demands focused solely on their own interests, such as special admissions to universities and the designation of their children as martyrs. They also displayed selfish behavior, such as insisting on continuing the search for missing passengers even after two divers lost their lives. As individuals, they could have thought rationally as citizens, considering the nation’s circumstances and realities. But by forming a collective identity as bereaved families, they revealed an egoism that pursued only their own interests without regard for those outside their group.
Adding to Niebuhr’s argument, French social psychologist Laurent Begg’s book Why Good People Make Bad Societies interprets human morality from a social psychological perspective. The core of Laurent Begue’s argument is that the human desire for social integration stimulates moral or immoral behavior. Generally, humans fear rejection and feel joy and satisfaction when confirming their place within a group. In other words, relationships with others and the gaze of others are crucial factors in reinforcing an individual’s moral or immoral tendencies. Driven by the desire to be recognized by members of their own group, humans sometimes exhibit astonishing altruism. Conversely, they also do not hesitate to harm other groups to gain acceptance within their own. Laurent Beg’s argument connects to Hannah Arendt’s concept of the ‘banality of evil’. Just as Hannah Arendt argued that ordinary people, not just antisocial personalities or fanatics, can commit evil acts, humans do not commit good or evil deeds because they possess a special nature. As the phrase ‘social animal’ symbolizes, the human desire for belonging is a primal urge, and this urge gives rise to both altruistic good deeds and selfish evil acts. An example of evil arising from this craving for belonging is right-wing internet communities. Those who frequent these sites are not personality disorders. They were ordinary people, no different from anyone else. Yet, driven by the desire to confirm their sense of belonging within the community and their own existence, they are causing significant social problems. They casually engage in acts like personally insulting famous celebrities or politicians, or commit unimaginable atrocities such as taking photos of their deceased grandfather who committed suicide and posting them as proof, solely to gain attention from community members. This is an extreme example showing what can happen when the craving for belonging is misguided.
Reading these three books allowed me to reach my own personal conclusions about good and evil. Human goodness (morality) and evil (immorality) stem more from social nature than innate character, and it is difficult to prevent a group’s selfish actions through an individual’s morality and rational judgment alone. Especially in modern society, where anonymous online group formation is increasing, the selfishness and evil deeds created by groups appear to be becoming an even more serious problem. However, there is also a hopeful aspect. Considering that humans are not inherently evil beings, as Machiavelli suggested, and that evil arises from conflicts of interest between groups, it is possible to create a society more focused on good deeds. This can be achieved by effectively controlling and managing such conflicts through law and order.
