Philosophers have initiated a debate about the human nature since the mankind got to probe into itself. The term "state of nature" is used to refer to the hypothetical condition of humans before social factors are imposed, thus attempting to describe the "natural essence" of human nature. Most views of it fall in three typical groups. Views in the first group see humans as inherently good.
自從人類探索自我以來，哲學家們就開始了對人性的爭論。“自然狀態”這個術語是指在社會因素被施加之前，指人類的假設條件，從而試圖描述人類自然的“自然本質”。它的大多數觀點在三個典型群體。在第一組中的意見認為人類本質上是好的。
The most famous theory in this group is John Locke‘s social contract theory. According to Locke, humans in the state of nature have absolute freedom to make their orders and take their actions, without having to ask permission from anyone else. People are born equal, and willing to treat each other as they would like to be treated. This will is known as sympathy, the source of justice and kindness and eventually all virtues. In ancient China a widely known philosopher, the most notable disciple of Confucius, Mencius, held similar points, declaring that humans are naturally moral beings but are corrupted by society. The second group includes views that see humans as inherently bad. According to original sin, humans in the state of nature are tarnished by the sin of Adam. Later the group had a more rational speaker, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that humans in the state of nature would behave "badly" towards one another, but he argued that people had every right to defend themselves by whatever means. Famously, he believed that such a condition would lead to a "war of every man against every man" and make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Similar theories also can be found in ancient China. Xuncius, another follower of Confucius as Mencius, simply rejected Mencius‘ claim. Instead he asserted that "Human Dispositions are Detestable". The rest views that form the last group stand a neutral point in the debate. They generally believe that human behavior is determined by biological and social factors, so there is no clear boundary between “good” and “evil” and nothing is to be blamed but the gene as well as the environment. And of the two factors which one decides more? Also known as “nature versus nurture”, this question compels enormous studies. Being a constant stranger to philosophy, I’ve got nothing to do but just skim over all of the theories mentioned above, keep thinking about human nature in my own way associated with familiar examples in my own surroundings, and undoubtedly end up all these without explicit conclusions.
這一群體中最著名的理論是約翰·洛克的社會契約理論。據洛克說，在自然狀態下的人有絕對的自由，使他們的命令，并采取他們的行動，而不必要求任何人的許可。人出生時是平等的，愿意彼此對待，因為他們愿意接受治療。這將被稱為同情，正義和善良的來源，并最終所有的美德。在古代中國著名的哲學家，孔子、Mencius最著名的弟子，舉行了類似的`觀點，聲稱人類是自然的道德而損壞的社會。第二組包括認為人類本質上是壞的觀點。根據原罪，人類在自然狀態是由亞當的罪玷污。后來，該組有一個更理性的揚聲器，托馬斯·霍布斯。霍布斯認為，人類在自然狀態下會表現得“很”，但他認為，人們有任何權利用任何手段來保護自己。眾所周知，他認為這樣的情況會導致“一切人反對一切人的戰爭”，讓生活“孤獨、貧窮、骯臟、野蠻和短暫的。”類似的理論也可以在古代中國找到。荀子，另一個跟隨孔子Mencius，簡單地拒絕Mencius的要求。他說，“人的性格是可憎的”。最后一組的其他觀點在辯論中是中立的一點。他們普遍認為，人類的行為是由生物和社會因素決定的，所以“善”與“惡”之間沒有明確的界限，沒有什么是被指責的，而是基因和環境之間的關系。和兩個決定更多的因素？也被稱為“天性與教養”，這個問題迫使龐大的研究。作為一個對哲學的一個不斷的陌生人，我沒有什么可以做，但只是掠過上面提到的所有理論，保持思考在我自己的方式與熟悉的例子在我自己的環境中的人性，毫無疑問地結束所有這些沒有明確的結論。(www.yingyuzuowen.cn)
Because whenever I try to figure in my mind what human nature is like, I could not help recalling so many stories about it, each of which conflicts with one another. They mess me up and keep me from a clear image about it. Therefore I have to hold a moderate opinion until I find new key evidence to prove whether human nature is good or evil. Before that, I choose to believe that human nature is indeed like a coin and neither side can easily dominate.
因為每當我試圖在我的腦海里想什么樣的人性是什么樣的，我忍不住想起了這么多的故事，每一個彼此沖突。他們把我搞得一團糟，讓我從一個清晰的形象。因此，我必須保持一個溫和的意見，直到我找到新的關鍵證據來證明人類的本性是好還是壞。在此之前，我選擇相信，人性確實像一個硬幣，任何一方都可以很容易地主宰。
【論人性 On Human Nature】相關文章：