Modern Western Enlightenment thinkers believe that humans are, at their most basic level, rational, autonomous, self-interested beings. This means that one is always trying to do what is most advantageous to oneself, or he or she is acting against his or her nature. It is this belief that leads not only to the concept of capitalism, but also to the ideas of liberty and democracy. Most Western thinkers believe that these systems and ideals are the basis to build a society because of their belief that humans are, by nature, rational and self-interested.
Marx, in contrast, believes that humans are not self-interested--rather he believes that what sets humans apart from other animals is the ability to do labor, which he defines as free, conscious work. This belief leads to his theory of communism. Capitalism inherently inhibits one's ability to act in this human way, because of estranged labor and private property. Conversely, communism inherently prohibits people from acting naturally according to most Western Enlightenment thinkers.
It seems that both philosophies are the ideal way to produce a society, if and only if it is accepted that the respective initial assumptions of human nature are true. In other words, if you accept that humans are rational, autonomous, self-interested beings, capitalism seems like a logical economic system on which to build a society, but if you accept that humans are unique in their natural ability to do free, conscious work, then communism seems more reasonable.
The obvious question, then, is what is human nature? How would people behave in a natural state? Does human nature exist, or are our "instincts" and "natural behavior" simply a result of our experiences and environment? The problem with this question is that it is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty because a state of nature cannot exist in the modern world. We quite simply cannot know how people would interact in a pure state of nature, without having been exposed to social preconceptions and ideologies.
The best way to try to answer this question then, I believe, is to look for patterns of behavior throughout history. By looking at these patterns, ones that are present in different cultures that have different ideals, beliefs, and government or economic systems and exist at different times, perhaps a hypothesis of human nature could be formed.
One pattern that is so basic it is easy to overlook is the formation of communities and societies in the first place. People since prehistoric times have had a tendency to group together. They join in cooperation for the good of all of the members of that community. Decisions, in general, are made to benefit the group over the individual. This seems to go against the Western Enlightenment perspective of human nature; however, what about the people who take advantage of the system and their fellow members of society? Are these people the exception to the rule, or are they simply the only ones who give in to their nature? Or do these people have different natures from law-abiding citizens? And what motivates people to join a society? Is it a natural feeling of cooperation and a belief that society will allow people to do their free, conscious work? Or is it purely for the individual benefits one gets?
Another pattern that is seen since prehistoric times is war. People seem to love to fight each other. Strangely enough, most people adamantly say they prefer peace to war; however, wars happen over and over again. What does this say about human nature? Is it proof of the predisposition to competition and self-interest? Even by looking at these patterns, it is difficult to compose a cohesive theory about human nature because of the constant contradictions. And this is what makes the question of how to build a society so difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment