Describe the different debates of human nature through at least three different political ideologies.
The debates:
Nature vs Nurture
Intellect vs Instinct
Competition vs Cooperation
The political ideologies:
Social ideologies for the first debate
Absolutism for the second debate
The last ideology is liberalism.
Solution
Introduction
Political system and laws are based on perceptions and understandings, regarding various phenomena, shaped by debates based on evidence. For instance, whether human behaviour is a consequence of innate evolutionary responses or experience influence both political and legal system. Therefore, debates on human nature and behaviour are extremely important as they directly influence of political and social developments.
Thesis Statement: How debates regarding selected phenomena influence political, economic, social and legal system?
Nature versus Nurture
Nature versus Nurture is one of the oldest debates, which became more complex, relevant and controversial after advances in the realm of genetic sciences. There are two schools of thought, which have a different view regarding human behaviour. The arguments of these schools of thought are backed by evidence, which credibility and internal reliability we can test or investigate.
Nature: It is understood as genetic factors, which influence both our personality and physical appearance. In other words, an individual’s appearance and his/her personality are influenced by his/her DNA. Therefore, it is DNA, which influences our behaviour and responses to the external environment. It implies that humans developed certain responses during the evolutionary period, on which they rely to survive and progress even in this contemporary age. For instance, fear compels humans to act in a particular manner (survival instincts) (Moore, 2003).
Nurture: On the contrast, some argue that environmental variables give attributes to a personality. For instance, childhood experiences develop our attitude and behaviour, and there is enormous evidence that supports this claim. Also, society and social relationships play an important role in developing our psychology and thus our attitude, behaviour, and responses.
Nature
The earliest understanding regarding Nature comes from the writings of Greek philosophers. For instance, Plato and Descartes were of the view that some traits of human were absolute and universal; these traits would appear regardless of environment. They described it as a nature of man, which is unchangeable.
The naturists are of the view that not few, but rather all traits, of a human being, are consequences of inheritance. External environment only develops social behaviour, which collapses, when a human is in an extraordinary situation. For instance, when we afraid, we tend to act in a particular manner. During happiness, our body language is different and so does our approach. The modern analysis (based on genetic and evolutionary knowledge) regarding human responses is that humans developed their responses during the evolutionary period (which continues to develop) and these responses are employed naturally or instinctively.
For instance, a child knows, instinctively to express pain or annoyance with a cry and happiness or pleasure with laughter. Similarly, in certain situations, certain responses we employ sub-consciously (Moore, 2003).
Nurture
The Victorian age philosophers were quite critical of the Greek concept that human nature influences individual’s behaviour, both apparently and intrinsically. This critique gave rise to the concept of nurture, which further developed by Sigmund Freud. The likes of John Locke and Sigmund Fried suggested that “human mind begins as a clean slate (Tabula Rasa).”
Some contemporary studies suggest that the human mind has developed beyond the point that Humans do not primarily depend upon evolutionary responses to meet various challenges. In fact, the growth of human civilization is evidence in favour of the nurture argument. Humans have developed new responses to survive (adaption). The pace of our adjustment to new environment suggests that evolutionary responses are no more prime influencing factors. Also, many studies also suggest that gender and other such concepts are socially constructed (Moore, 2003).
From the discussion, it is apparent both human nature and nurture and valid arguments. Humans depend on both their instincts and experiences to develop a particular 1) attitude, 2) behaviour, and 3) response. There is ample of evidence in favour both, which is why both nature and nurture arguments are valid (Ridley, 2006). (Note: This debate has also strongly affected the development of political thought and the evolution of political systems.)
Intellect versus Instinct
Intellect: Intellect is generally understood as faculty or capacity to understand and reason objectively. Intellect is, in fact, a consequence of experience (the growth of memory), which provides the ability to develop emotional and psychological instruments for a certain situation, reality or environment. Therefore, we can say that the intellect is the capacity to develop and deliberately employ a response to a situation or reality, based on previous experiences.
Instinct: As per its broad understanding, it is an inherent behaviour in animals/humans, which is a response to external stimuli. It is also called evolutionary response, which species developed over thousands of years and it is ingrained in their DNA/psyche. Studies reveal that animals depend primarily on their instincts to survive or to respond to a situation/reality.
There are two types of debates that are raging regarding intellect and instincts. One of the two debates is that which of the two, intellect and instincts, influences human behaviour more. The second debate pertains to reliance; on which of the two phenomena, should humans rely most? (Bergson, 2012).
Intellect
Some studies imply that intellect is itself an evolutionary trait; an improvement on instincts. When homo-sapiens’ initially developed their brain, and the size of memory started to grow, they instinctively started to rely more on it. The intellect developed at a quick pace in last 15 000 years, during which humans gave birth to distinct civilisations in different parts of the worlds. The uniqueness of each civilisation is in fact evidence that humans rely more on their intellect than instincts.
Numerous studies suggest that humans mostly rely on their experiences rather than on their instincts to respond to a situation. It is the sole reason that humans can record complex experiences so that they could review these experiences, in a particular fashion, to develop a response (to a situation, reality, or environment) or take a decision. Also, intellect is based on facts and experiences, rather sub-conscious, which distinguishes it from instincts and makes it a dichotomy of absolutism. Therefore, human intellect is a very relevant phenomenon, on which humans depend greatly.
Legal systems also distinguish between instinct and intellect; consider former an instrument that influences or produces deliberate acts or responses (Huxley-Binns & Martin, 2014).
Instincts
Instincts are considered natural or evolutionary responses; behavioural responses, which are innate. In both humans and animals, the display or demonstration of instincts is quite apparent. However, it is also a fact that instincts cannot be deliberately employed. We also learn that instincts are demanding or requirements, which must be addressed. For instance, some studies imply that God is an instinctive requirement rather than a result of intellect exercise.
The dichotomy
It is believed that intellect undermines absolutism, as the intellect is based on experiences and formed by objective realities. Absolutism, which may refer to political or theological absolutism, is undermined because Absolutism is considered/asserted to be a universal phenomenon; however, intellect is not a universal phenomenon, as it varies from an individual to individual, which is why it contradicts Absolutism. In contrast, instincts favour Absolutism, as instinct is considered or asserted to be a universal phenomenon.
Societies or political systems acknowledge both instincts and intellect. For instance, the law acknowledges instincts and therefore, recognises self-defence, which is, in fact, an evolutionary response to extraordinary. Similarly, in law, there is severe punishment for stealing, robbery, and murder, because these are deliberate acts based on intellect (individual knows what would be the consequences of their action) (Martin & Storey, 2015).
Competition versus Cooperation
We are going to study and discuss these concepts in Liberalism’s context. For that, we have to define liberalism. Liberalism is a generally understood as political thought or view based on 1) equality and 2) liberty. These concepts are defined political liberalism, which is considered a product of Western Civilization, which has great influence of ancient Greece.
Equality: In the context of liberalism, equality is equal opportunities for all individuals and groups, which constitute society, corporate and political systems. Also, equality is also understood as the just and unbiased implementation of the law. Democracies, which are a manifestation of liberalism (political thought), ensure that opportunities and law are equal for all. Those democracies, which fail to ensure that, are considered less efficient democracies.
Liberty: Liberty is a very complex subject, in liberalism’s context. Liberty is generally understood as more rights and freedom to an individual or group. As liberalism has its roots in capitalist concepts; therefore, freedom is also interpreted as competition (Kachiga, 2008).
Competition
In a political context, the competition is allowing different political thoughts to prosper within a liberal-political/economic system. For instance, progressive political parties can compete against other political parties (such as conservative political parties) based on their political agenda. Recently, the Republican Party in the United States was able to elect its President, which would facilitate them to implement conservative political-economic agenda.
Similarly, in an economic context, free market economy allows local and international products to penetrate markets, which reduces the price and increases innovation in industries.
It is apparent that liberal political-economic systems are based on competition rather than in cooperation. In political theatre, participants fiercely compete with one another based on their political ideologies and agendas, which affects democracy in a particular manner. Similarly, firms, in a liberal-economic system, compete against one another based on the quality and price of the product (Heywood, 2004).
Cooperation
It is apparent that liberal political-economic systems are based on competition, rather than cooperation. However, competition does not guarantee success and progress. For instance, political differences and competition when deepened in western democracies, they adversely affected the system. Examples are Greece and United States. Similarly, in the economic realm, the Darwinian competition affected industrial growth and created an oligopoly (Kachiga, 2008).
Therefore, liberalism must incorporate both completion and cooperation for durable success and substantial progress.
Conclusion
In the end of this detailed debate, it is apparent that debates regarding selected phenomena are shaped by scientific and statistical evidence. We have learned that as these debates take new form and draw new conclusions, our political-economic-legal systems alters. In addition, these debates also give direction to social progress.
References
Bergson, H., 2012. Creative Evolution. 1st ed. Courier Corporation.
Heywood, A., 2004. Political Theory: An Introduction. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Huxley-Binns, R. & Martin, J., 2014. Unlocking the English legal system. 4th ed. London: Routledge.
Kachiga, J., 2008. Global Liberalism and Its Casualties. 1st ed. University Press of America.
Martin, J. & Storey, T., 2015. Unlocking Criminal Law. 5th ed. London: Routledge.
Moore, D.S., 2003. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “Nature Vs. Nurture”. 1st ed. Henry Holt and Company.
Ridley, M., 2006. Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human. 1st ed. Fourth Estate.
+447462439809