Human Nature and Social Systems, Essay Example

Introduction

Humanity has struggled with attempts to create ideal social systems since the beginnings of its history.  Societies and cultures rise and fall, with some enduring for hundreds of years and others lost in very little time.  Political and social theories are insisted upon as the answer, but even those that seem to most reasonably address the many variables in human nature are as subject to failure as any other.  What lasts, in fact, is only humanity’s determination to identify or create a system which both satisfies the needs of a society and can accommodate the limitless potentials of human behavior undermining the good of that society.  Human beings are then political animals in the sense that they seek and require this form of order.  At the same time, it seems inescapable that human nature will always subvert the processes of even the most rational system, if only because there are elements of human nature which defy order for various reasons.  This being the reality, and as will be explored in the following, the system most likely to endure and serve the interests of the majority is a republican society, that which is based on a foundation of law, and with a libertarian emphasis going to lessened governmental control.  Such a system is not ideal because human nature does not permit an ideal system to last, but the combined republican/libertarian has the most promise.

Discussion

Before there can be any appreciation of why a republican society is most likely to preserve order and see to the needs of the many, it is first necessary to understand the fundamental problem in virtually all philosophy regarding human nature and human societies.  In simple terms, and even as great minds through the ages have perceived what is necessary for humans to live together well, there remains always the factor of human nature as frequently flawed.  It may seem that this is a cynical point of view, and consequently not relevant to an actual examination of the value of political systems.  History alone, however, fully supports that flaws in human character inevitably distort or destroy the most effective governments, and because these flaws exist outside of virtually all ideologies concerning human formation of societies.  Great philosophers do note human flaws; very often, in fact, the philosophies exist to address them. In both Eastern and Western thinking, important minds have devoted extensive thought to the nature of human weakness and its inevitable harm to the majority, as well as to the individual.  Nonetheless, what is seen is invariably an emphasis on why the flaws must be discarded, which of itself does not go to encouraging or creating an ideal society.  The great minds, in simple terms, inform, humanity of what it should be in order to be fulfilled and to function as a society, but they fail to provide the means for changing the human behaviors that so inevitably work against humanity’s best interests.

Mo Tzu, for example, offers a philosophy of human conduct opposed to Confucian principles in many ways.  Confucius holds that human virtue is achieved because it brings its own rewards, which may be seen as a form of socialist thought; as doing good generates benefits, humanity provides its own incentive for doing good.  Confucian ethics then operate from a view of utility, just as there are gradations of personal obligations within human affairs, and the love owed to parents must be greater than that given to others. It is an ideology then both ethical and functional, as it comprehends some degree of proper human investment of care as generated.  For Tzu, humanity is not the defining object, and the will of heaven is the true authority.  It is this will that demands morality and the correct functioning of a society, and human beings treated all others with love is also a condition of it (Chan 211).  Consequently, the only valid society is the one in which the ruler bows to the will of heaven, because such rule equates to a commitment to an unquestionable authority and an absolute adherence to what is right.

What is most interesting in these two philosophies, however, is not how they differ, but how they are alike.  Confucius believes humans are obligated to do good by virtue of an understanding of good as a practical force most desirable, and Tzu alters the obligation by making it a necessary acceptance of divine rule.  Both, however, assume a reality by no means consistent with human behavior. Both ways of thinking seem to insist on a natural impulse in humanity – and, importantly, individuals – to want what is good.  Even Confucian ideas regarding differences in human investment of care still presuppose that people will be guided to invest that care in the first place, and this is a remarkable assumption common to philosophies beyond these two.  In plain terms, there is no evidence in history that individuals invariably reflect this impulse in a uniform way, even as so many people have devoted themselves to such ideas.  Put another way, any such system as governing a society must rely on the complete acceptance of the ideas by all the people, and the unfortunate reality is that human beings, in small and large numbers, frequently seek to defy what is good, and both for themselves and for the society.  All that is required for a society to fail is a number of individuals not dedicated to the common good, and/or motivated in ways damaging to the general welfare.  Even these powerful philosophies are then rendered meaningless.  It is one thing to propose a system based on a universal understanding of the importance of virtue, and its practical benefits as going to all from virtue; it is another for such a society to exist, because human beings are often driven by impulses destructive to the common good.

This is not to suggest that only “bad” people harm societies.  Very often, only differences in pursuing the ideal are enough to harm the majority, and this is the case when a “well-meaning” ruler believes that a dictatorship is best for the people.  Such a ruler may believe they are following the will of heaven, even, and that their rule is necessary for the welfare of the society.  Similarly, a group may demand rebellion and harm many out of good intentions, because they offer no alternative society and are concerned only with ending what they perceive to be wrong.  The majority suffers because a small number, seeking to improve the society, weaken it further by not providing a working system. What matters in all such cases is that there are differences in the ideas of what is good, and this equates to human nature inevitably working against itself in social terms.  In plain terms, the ideal system cannot exist because there are no ideal collections of human beings. The great irony here, of course, is that it is an altered morality, and not the absence of morality, that is the destructive agent.

The problem in most ideologies promoting any system, then, is that they take for granted a consistent human motivation to serve the interests of the many, when there is no historical evidence of this motive as consistently outweighing personal ambitions.  An example of this is socialism as endorsed by Marx.  The ultimate failure of the Soviet communist state, which was always intended to lead the way into a perfect socialist society, is not even essential to understand why the system ultimately cannot succeed.  As is well known, Marx defies capitalism because he holds that it suppresses human interests in individual terms and sets people against one another to pursue gain.  In socialism, Marx believes, all people flourish because the ability to do so in all translates to the same for the individual.  Each man and women achieving their potential serves the interests of the society, so virtue essentially promotes virtue in terms of individuals having the freedom to develop their minds and spirits, and not forced to labor for the profit of another (Schmitt, Anton 122).  Unfortunately, capitalism exists because human beings tend to be more interested in what benefits them as individuals, or or at least more motivated in this than they are for any common good.  This is not to say that the multitude is opposed to all doing well; rather, the less dramatic reality is that many, based on how socialism so often fails to take hold, more simply devote greater attention and effort to what promotes their own well-being, and this is all that is necessary for a socialist society to collapse.

All of this is why the republican state is most likely to both provide for the welfare of all and address the very real factor of individual ambition.  It is important to note that republicanism is not literal democracy; in the latter, and in its true form, the majority of the people dictate what is right and legal.  The republican government, conversely, stands on a foundation of law which the popular vote cannot alter, except through legislative and judicial challenges and processes.  In simple terms, no person is above the law in the republican state, and this is critical given the tendencies of human beings to focus on their own interests and/or misguided ideas of what is better for the society.  With the republican state, in fact, the goals of socialism are at least partially served because the laws, rather than the people, insist on the common good as the priority concern.  At the same time, a libertarian state translates to less strictly governmental control, which empowers the society to more freely pursue what it believes serves its interests while adhering to the law, securing the greater good.  This element is not a form of statehood itself, but rather a modification of the republic, and one vital for maintaining the balance between government controls in place to attend to all, and the individual pursuits necessary for the society to actually endure.  In a world in which there is no ideal society possible due to imperfect human beings, this is the most rational means of enabling individual freedom and providing necessary structure.

Conclusion

Human nature has been a concern of humanity for as long as humanity has sought to create ethical and functional societies.  To that end, philosophers endlessly probe the nature of people, and typically arrive at solutions based on how human beings should behave.  They point the way, time and again, to the immense benefits of virtuous behavior.  Unfortunately, and as history so blatantly reveals, a vast array of motivations not going to the greater good consistently defy such ethics.  If good is even desired by all within a society, there are very different ideas as to how it may be created, so societies are invariably subject to turmoil.  This being the case, a code of law must be in place providing an ethical foundation, and in such a republican state there must be as well a libertarian influence limiting government control.  No system is ideal because human nature does not allow for an ideal system to last, but the republican/libertarian has the most promise.

Works Cited

Chan, Wing-Tsit.  A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univrsity Press, 2008. Print.

Schmitt, Richard, & Anton, Anatole.  Taking Socialism Seriously.  Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2012.  Print.