Ethical Irrationality: Exploring Human Nature with Reason

Since there has been man, there have been questions. It is man’s nature to think, and while doing so, questions arise. “Are we rational? Are we identical? Are we social beings? Why are we?” Of course, as with all unanswerable questions, there are those who have “answered them.” Traditional rationalists, Judeo-Christians, existentialists and behaviorists have all tried to answer these questions, and despite how close they came to a “perfect answer,” they all still fell short.

It’s no misnomer: Traditional rationalists believed wholeheartedly that man was a rationally-driven animal. By dividing the human into three parts—appetite, reason and spirit—early philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle tried valiantly at answering these questions. They agreed that, given every chance, man would act rationally, using his reason to ultimately decide the outcome of a choice. They saw that people weren’t identical, as some had higher concentrations of the three parts, and this lead to three different types of people: Artisans, guardians and philosopher-kings. Society was innate in their view of humans, as it took all three types of people to live harmoniously together, everyone filling his niche. Man exists to create, they reasoned, and it was the societies that fostered that creation. The idea that man would always act rationally and that they were composed of three unique parts was unique to the traditional rationalist view, and forces it to stand out as one of the most insightful ideas to come out of ancient Greece.

Judeo-Christians praised the ability that humans posses to love and know, and centered their ideas upon them. They thought so highly of the will and intellect that they deduced that there must exist a “God” who made us in his image. The Judeo-Christians praised the people’s innate sense of good, claiming that they would act on a moral sense rather than a strictly rational sense of reason. Being created in the image of an all-powerful God creates the assumption that all humans are created equal, and all are given the same sense of moral good and the ability to love and know. Our societies come from the innate urge to help each other, and so humans form societies to live together and to give thanks to God. The Judeo-Christian view on why we are is simple: We were created to serve God, to praise him and serve him by upholding the moral values he gave us and using our knowledge and love to live harmoniously. Although this view differs from the traditional rationalist view, it is not a complete rebuttal, as it was Plato who significantly influenced Christian thought through other early philosophers. The idea of an omniscient God is completely absent from the existentialist and behaviorist views, however, and the idea that we are created by such is in conflict with almost every part of said views.

Instead of the traditional modifications and tweaks other people were making to existing views on human nature, the existentialists’ view acted much like a challenge to its precursors. Instead of believing that humans were innately rational, they speculated that humans were whatever they themselves wanted to become. They denied any essential facets of human nature, insisting they were all identical, differing only after they have created their own nature through free, responsible (not necessarily rational) choices. They didn’t believe humans were social or not—if some humans chose to be social, then they were. Sartre reasoned that we don’t have a reason for existing; we are simply “condemned to be free.” Existentialists feel that we are free and responsible for our actions, and to many, knowing this causes anguish. Existentialists deny the existence of a god, distancing itself from the traditional rationalist’s and Judeo-Christian’s views of human nature, and while behaviorism echoes existentialism, it does not explain how our decisions are made—only that they are made, and we are responsible.

As science improved, more scientific-oriented views of human nature procured. Behaviorists don’t feel that people act rationally or irrationally, but instead act on the inputs they receive through the senses. They feel that everything done is a behavior, and that people are all identically driven by behaviors. Some inputs drive people to congregate, work together and socialize, while others experience opposite inputs, pushing them away from society. The behaviorist agrees with the existentialist that we do not exist for a reason, but they go on to deduce that we are just driven by hardwired behaviors. Unlike the other views, the behaviorist claims we don’t make choices, we only act on our behaviors.

I find all these different views on human nature very intriguing, yet I can’t say I find any particularly attractive. The debates between the different views seems more like an exercise in rationalization than an advanced philosophical discussion—every group attempts to force the description of life into their convoluted box of theories, yet none can. For instance, take this essay. I’d much rather read and digest the material on my own terms than merely regurgitate it in the name of a grade. The rationalist would claim that my reason outweighs my appetite, so I write. The Judeo-Christian would shout that I have an urge to love, and by doing school work, it shows I love my parents for the values they have instilled in me. The existentialist would mutter something about how I only write to make a better life for myself after college, though it doesn’t really matter anyway. The behaviorist would speculate that a series of sensory inputs lead my fingers to output an essay. Correctness is claimed on each account, ascertained by the fact that their conclusion fit their data, yet I look toward none to satiate my “need to know.” Instead, I would much rather push off and walk away from scholars and scientists, choosing instead to quit the fruitless contemplation of life and just live it.