Antonov 1

Michal Antonov

GVPT241

Dr. James Glass

April 18, 2016

What is Human Nature?

What is human nature? The definition of it depends on point of view.

For most philosophers, their own definition of human nature is the backbone

of their political philosophies. For those like Rousseau, human nature is

inherently good. For others, like Locke, human nature is more complex and

can be mostly ambitious and selfish. At times, its good to believe that

human nature is naturally good and moral and that sovereigns and

governments should be based off of that concept. However, Rousseaus

vision of society and government is much too idealistic. Locke has a better

understanding of the true and complex nature of humans and their

ambitions. His focus on individual rights and the lengths to which the people

should go to protect them is much more practical and realistic.

In Discourse on Inequality Rousseau writes in the First Part his belief on

human nature, which is that humans were born inherently good but that

goodness was destroyed by corruption and perfectibility (Rousseau 67).

Humans developed the constant desire to improve themselves, and therefore

perfectibility is what causes humans to emerge out of their original condition.

And while that emergence has caused humanity to do extraordinary feats,

Rousseau believes that it was also the cause of what he considers to be

 Antonov 2

unnatural in modern human society. In the state of nature, human needs

were restricted to three simple things that were essential to survival: food,

rest and sex (Rousseau 29). Rousseau then goes on to describe in the

Second Part of the Discourse that as societies developed, so did needs. They

became more complex and more essential to pleasure instead of survival,

such as exotic food and entertainment. To acquire these exotic needs, an

individual needs wealth, and wealth comes hand in hand with power and

property. The emergence of this new system caused corruption to emerge

and essentially destroy human virtue. People became only interested in

themselves and their own advancement in society. The inherent goodness of

human nature was replaced by greed and corruption, mainly for power and

property. The emergence of property and materialism ended up causing

many wars, horrors, and misfortunes (Rousseau 70).

Rousseau is not wrong in his interpretation on the development on

human nature. However, it is the direction that he later takes using this

philosophy that is the problem. After Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau later

wrote The Social Contract, in which he describes his ideal government and

society. He illustrates his own idea of a social contract, in which, Each of us

puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of

the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as

an indivisible part of the whole (Rousseau 18). The general will expresses

what is best for the state as a whole. All citizens are bound by the general

will, which is when the will of the sovereign or the government aims at the
 Antonov 3

common good. Rousseau writes that in a healthy state, each citizen wills the

common good, and therefore the will of each individual is the same as the

general will (Rousseau 35-36). Since property and material goods are

individual interests, the ambition to acquire them can be a threat to the

common good and should therefore be restricted.

But Rousseaus view on human nature is very one sided. He perceives

human nature through a black white lens: humans started out only good and

now are only selfish. That is not entirely true. First of all, there is no concrete

evidence that supports that humans were born inherently good. What

Rousseau describes as savage man (Rousseau 17) couldve been just as

ambitious to acquire shelter and food as humans in modern society are to

acquire monetary wealth and property. However, what Rousseau doesnt take

into account is that humans are not entirely selfish. They have just adapted

to change. As societies developed, so did the connections and

communications between them. Exotic items such as food and clothes

became more accessible to different people. But as that accessibility grew so

did the competition to obtain these items. Humans adapted to that situation

and became more aggressive in obtaining these items, leading to this so-

called selfishness that Rousseau considers unnatural.

Rousseaus claim that there is significant inequality in many societies

is not wrong either. During his lifetime, 18th century France had a significant

gap between the upper and the lower classes. The aristocracy and members

of the Catholic Church were exempt from taxes and led lavish lives, while the
 Antonov 4

poorer citizens suffered from the burden of taxes and starvation. His ideal

government that included the concept of the general will was to be the

remedy to this problem. His argument about this ideal government is

visionary and impressive. However, it is too idealistic. While human nature is

not entirely selfish, it still very much self-serving at times. It all goes back to

the idea of property. Acquiring property represents wealth, and wealth means

more power. And for many ambitious human beings, the more power the

better.

A good example of this perception on human nature is the French

Revolution, a significant period of time which was heavily influenced by

Rousseaus writing. Leaders of the revolution such as Robespierre and Saint-

Just were inspired by Rousseaus ideas about the general will and the

common good. They considered the monarchy a threat to both of these

concepts and wanted to destroy and replace it with Rousseaus vision. These

leaders started out as egalitarian republicans by working hard to do away

with superfluities and corruption. However, as the revolution progressed it

became more and more violent, a period of time known as the Reign of

Terror. Although he didnt intend to become one, Robespierre eventually

turned out to be something like a dictator. He instituted the policies which

made the Reign of Terror so bloody, such as trials without witnesses and no

mercy for the guilty. This made France his property; he had ultimate control

of the country and that made him more powerful. He started out as

inherently moral and rational, until his human nature got the best of him and
 Antonov 5

eventually became self-serving and ambitious, all while trying to follow

Rousseaus doctrine.

Human nature is not black and white, and in fact much more complex

than how Rousseau perceives it to be. Human nature can be both selfish and

compassionate, and that depends on the individual (and the experiences

that have shaped that person). This complexity that Rousseau fails to take

into account is what John Locke uses as the backbone to his own philosophy.

In Second Treatise of Government, Locke starts off with describing his ideal

society where theres a community of free, equal individuals, all who possess

natural rights (Locke 13). The concept of natural rights, to this day,

remains one of the most important aspects of Lockes philosophy. Locke

believes that natural rights, which include life, health, liberty, or

possessions (Locke 15) are the rights that each person is given by God, and

therefore nobody, not even a sovereign, can take that away from them

(Locke 15).

Locke places major focus on the concept of property, and defines it in

several ways. The first is common property, which is the property of the

Earths population that is in common use for survival and benefit. Then he

continues by writing, Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be

common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no

body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his

hands, we may say, are properly his (Locke 45). The idea of common

property only applies to the Earth because its implied by the words of the
 Antonov 6

Bible. Each human then owns his or her own body, as well as all the labor

they perform with the body (such as picking an apple). Each person has the

license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.

Lockes attitude towards property is where his definition of human

nature can be interpreted. While each person has the power to appropriate

things, there is a bound on this type of acquisition. Locke believes that a

person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can

reasonably use to their advantage (Locke 39). This means that he defines

human nature as mostly self-serving. He claims that, government has no

other end but the preservation of property (Locke 96). Political power is

significantly important when it comes to property, mostly because the

sanctity of property often surpasses the sanctity of life. He reasons that one

can relinquish ones life by fighting war, but cannot relinquish ones property,

to which another person may have the right to own (Locke 37). As with

Rousseaus argument, people associate property with power and wealth.

These three factors combined hold a different significance for some. But for

most people, the more one has of each of those factors the better one is able

to protect ones own family and other assets.

While Locke does admit that humans are compassionate, it can be

inferred from the commitment of his philosophy on property and the

protection of it that he ultimately knows that humans are are extremely

capable of being self-serving individuals. This is proved by certain significant

events that occur after Lockes lifetime. One of the most important events
 Antonov 7

that Lockes philosophy influenced was the American Revolution. Not only did

it encourage the 13 colonies to declare independence from England, but it

also served as the backbone of the American government.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, We hold

these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are

endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these

are Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness (Declaration of Independence,

1776). Jefferson took the idea of unalienable rights from Lockes philosophy,

but he changed property to pursuit of Happiness. The pursuit of

Happiness was probably meant to be open ended, because different things

make different people happy. However, for most people property is what

makes them happy. Why? Because property equals power, power equals

wealth, and wealth equals protection.

The idea of the American Revolution that stemmed from Lockes

philosophy started out as egalitarian, just as the French Revolution did.

However, that idea evolved into something completely different as the

United States became more developed as a nation. Lockes idea about the

prosperity and protection of property was taken to the extreme when it came

around to the 18th century. One example of this is slavery. The African slave

trade was one of the United States booming economic trades. Even though

the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves was enacted in 1807 and abolished

the slave trade, it did not abolish slavery itself. American businessmen,

specifically plantation owners, still traded slaves inside of the country and
 Antonov 8

profited off of slavery. The slaves were their property, and their property

made them money, which in turn made them more powerful. The same goes

for a later period of time in the U.S., the Industrial Revolution. Even though

factory workers were not legally referred to as slaves, they were still

exploited by the owners for profit, and therefore became the property of the

factory owners in addition to the factory itself. Alongside slavery and the

Industrial Revolution came about legislation that protected the owners rights

more than the slaves or the workers. It was difficult for slaves to become

free and took years for slavery to be abolished. As for the Industrial

Revolution, the government did everything in its power to strengthen

companies and trusts, and weaken the power and influence of unions that

were rallying for the common good. In accordance with Lockes perception on

human nature, this just shows how ambitious people can be when it comes

to making profit off of their property, and how far they are willing to go for it.

A world that is governed by the beliefs of Rousseau is an ideal world to

live in, but that type of world does not exist. As much as Rousseau believes

in the inherent goodness of human beings, no human has ever lived his or

her life by being purely good. Nor can there be a society that is governed

only by the general will, which is based off of that goodness of human

beings. In reality society is structured the way Locke sees it, with individual

rights and property being the most important features. Unlike Rousseau,

Locke takes into account the complexity of human nature in his philosophy,
 Antonov 9

and how it shapes modern society into protecting individual rights and

property instead of the collective good.