Exploring Human Nature and Ethics
Human nature is kind of like a blueprint that lays out the basic schematic or essence that you have as the type of entity you are. Many people refer to that blueprint as a way to escape responsibility for what they (or other humans) do, saying “we can’t help it, it’s our nature!” When human nature is used in this way, it points out what is (or perhaps isn’t) possible for humanity, being the creatures humans are. Others point to human nature merely as a way of noting that certain kinds of dispositions or actions are more or less likely for humans. After all, it could be that human nature gives you a bit of a push or nudge in one direction or another.
Philosophers have debated the concept of “human nature” for centuries. Some believe it’s fixed, while others argue it’s shaped by culture and experience. This debate continues to influence modern discussions in ethics, psychology, and even biology.
Considering Human Nature and Ethics
Human nature is an inborn structure that defines the human being. That structure affects and shapes not only what’s possible for humans but also what or how human beings are more or less likely to react to the situations in which they find themselves. Ethics is concerned not just with what’s possible for you but also with how you ought to respond to the world around you, revealing the deep intersection between ethics and human nature. This section takes a look at human nature and how it may intersect or affect important questions and concerns within ethics.
Human nature determines possibilities and impossibilities, and it also can make certain behaviors or responses toward the world more or less likely.
- Recognized human nature as a blueprint for behavior and possibilities
- Explored how ethics links with our natural capacities and dispositions
Examining the Idea of Human Nature
When people think about human nature, they tend to wonder about the ways in which human beings as human beings are put together from birth as well as about the ways that affect how (or in what way) humans then live their lives. Usually these reflections ask how human nature fashions that which is possible for humans to do, and they also ask whether human nature makes certain types of behaviors or reactions to the world more or less likely.
To get a grasp of an abstract topic like human nature, start with something intuitive — like nature. How do you think about it? Then apply the thinking to humans. Common intuitions about nature typically contain at least these two parts:
- ✓ Nature refers to the forests, parks, and the untouched landscape of the planet. You may say, “Let’s go camp out in nature” thinking that you want to experience the world is in its normal, untouched state — the way in which your world is from/at the start.
- ✓ Nature refers to the kinds of powers, capacities, dispositions, or limitations that something has due to its normal untouched starting place or condition. You’re thinking of what is natural to the entity in question.
Think of pushing a boulder down a hill. It will roll to the bottom. The reason is simple: Rolling downhill is the nature of a material thing like a boulder — what it is in its untouched state. Boulders are round and have mass, so when you place one on an incline, it’s natural for it to roll downhill. You also know some other things as well: namely that boulders don’t object to being rolled, because their nature doesn’t allow for consciousness. Thinking of a different kind of entity, like a plant, you may think the natural state that it starts as makes it capable of performing photosynthesis, and also makes it likely that the plant will move toward light.
At this point you can see that the basic and original nature of a thing tends to play a role in determining what’s possible and impossible for that thing, and it points to what kinds of behaviors you may expect from that thing when you put it in certain environments.
So, how does this relate to human nature? How are humans constructed or put together, and how does that basic nature play a significant role in determining human possibilities and impossibilities as well as capacities or dispositions? After all, several ways exist to think about this question. Humans are all these things (just to name a few): material beings, psychological beings, subject to a genetic blueprint, and members of a specific biological species. That’s a lot of ways to think about the nature of the human being.
How do you think your own nature—both biological and psychological—affects the choices you make every day?
An inborn structure or blueprint that defines what is possible, impossible, or likely for human beings, shaping their capacities and dispositions.
A discipline concerned with how you ought to respond to the world and what you ought to do, often intersecting with human nature.
In psychology, researchers study how personality traits like empathy and aggression are connected to human nature, influencing ethical behavior in real-world situations such as conflict resolution or teamwork.
Linking Human Nature and Ethics
Starting in the most general place, being able to do what ethics suggests that you ought to do is essential. If everyone shares a nature as humans, it will be true that there are things that humans can and can’t do as the kinds of creatures they are. Moreover, humans are more or less likely to do certain things because their natures may dispose toward the world in certain ways. Because these two results of having a human nature impact ethics, you need to see more clearly how the intersection occurs.
We start by focusing on the most general claim that ethics as a discipline can make. You can easily see where ethics can be quickly affected by claims about human nature. The general claim of ethics is:
You ought to do/be/follow X!
Notice that this isn’t a demand that some ethical theories make. All ethical theories want you to get out there and live the ethical life (whatever those theories take that to be). So they all share this basic demand, which means that the basic claim of ethics as a discipline has two central components, which are:
- You ought . . .
- . . . to do/be/follow X!
With this simple breakdown, try to think of how claims about human nature can impact each one separately.
Do you think all humans are equally capable of making ethical choices, or does our nature make some choices harder for certain people?
Want to go deeper? The science behind “Ought implies can”
The principle “ought implies can” is central to many ethical theories, especially those influenced by Immanuel Kant. Philosophers argue that it’s unfair or illogical to demand actions from someone if their nature or circumstances make those actions impossible. For example, expecting someone to act virtuously when they’re deprived of all freedom doesn’t align with ethical responsibility. This principle is often debated in modern psychology and law, where questions about free will and accountability arise.
The Requirement of Freedom
The first point says ethics suggests that you ought . . . something. This basic claim says you ought to put yourself on a path that you presently may not be on. The claim suggests that it’s up to you — that it’s possible and that you’re free to choose either way. In fact, it’s your ability to choose that makes holding you responsible possible. Good people make good choices, bad people make bad ones.
Seeing this point, it’s not surprising that a popular statement in ethics claims that if you ought to do something, it must be the case that you can do it. Because ethics is by definition the field that deals with what you ought to do, the consequence is that you should be capable of making choices in the first place. Basically, if ethics says you ought to do/be/follow anything, it’s implied that you should be capable of choosing the ethical life or rejecting it.
To test this intuition, imagine that you’re in school and your teacher says “You ought to float in midair right now.” You’d likely be amused by the strange suggestion, but then not so amused when your failure to do it resulted in being sent to the principal’s office. Clearly you’d protest, “But I can’t float, so how can the teacher demand that I ought to do it?” If people who fail to live ethically are said to be bad people, but they can’t choose the ethical life, how can they be held responsible for their actions? In fact, this very example captures the following two important claims that many ethicists make:
- ✓ Ought implies can. If you ought to do something, this means or implies that it’s already understood that you can do it.
- ✓ Can’t rejects ought. If you can’t do it, suggesting that you ought to do it is silly.
Reflect: Why is it important that ethical demands only apply to actions you are capable of performing? How does this principle affect our judgment of others?
If someone acts unethically, it’s simply because it’s their unchangeable “human nature.”
While human nature shapes possibilities and tendencies, ethical action involves choice—and responsibility for those choices.
Consider a scenario where two people face the same ethical dilemma, but with different backgrounds and personalities. Explore how their “human nature” might influence their choices.
- Imagine two people, Alex and Taylor, both witnessed someone stealing in a store.
- Write down how each person’s response might differ if Alex is naturally cautious and Taylor is adventurous.
- Reflect on how their innate traits, upbringing, and freedom to choose shape their ethical decisions.
How does your understanding of your own nature—your tendencies, strengths, and limitations—affect the way you respond to ethical situations in daily life?
Practitioners in ethics, such as counselors and social workers, often assess whether a person’s actions are influenced by innate tendencies or conscious choices. Understanding this distinction can impact how support and guidance are offered in real-life situations.
What is “human nature”?
Tap to revealAn inborn structure or blueprint that defines what is possible or likely for humans.
What does “ought implies can” mean in ethics?
Tap to revealIf you are ethically required to do something, it’s implied you must be capable of doing it.
How does human nature intersect with ethics?
Tap to revealHuman nature determines what ethical actions are possible and how likely a person is to act ethically.
According to the principle “ought implies can,” what must be true for an ethical demand to make sense?
Human nature acts as a blueprint that shapes what is possible and likely for us as ethical agents.
The principle “ought implies can” ensures that ethical demands only apply if you are actually capable of performing the action.
How confident are you that you can explain the connection between human nature and ethical responsibility?
If you’re interested in how freedom and responsibility relate to ethics, explore theories of moral agency in psychology and philosophy for deeper understanding.
The Shift
- Human nature shapes what actions are possible and likely for us.
- Ethical responsibility depends on our freedom and ability to choose.
- Misconceptions about human nature can obscure the role of choice in ethical behavior.