Sunday, October 25, 2015

What Makes Humans Bad? {Humanities}

Are We Born "Bad" or Do We Become "Bad"?



My understanding of the humanities has evolved into something much larger than I ever gave it credit for.  I used to think that people who study humanity disciples, such as philosophy, had it all figured out.  Little did I know that my pursuit for knowledge in the humanities would leave feeling so perplexed. 




There have been many who claim to know what makes humans bad.  Two of the most prominent modern philosophers—"modern" in comparison to Sophocles—Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, held strong beliefs about the nature of man.  According to Locke, all men are born without innate principles, but rather as “white paper” or tabula rasa (Locke, 1689)By this, Locke was saying that human were not born with “bad” tendencies, but were shaped by experiences which would lead them towards becoming a “good” or “bad” human being.  In contrast, Hobbes believed that all men had war-like tendencies and were programmed to fight (Hobbes, 1651).  In order to keep peace and order, Hobbes believed that men needed one man or a group of men to hold authority over all others. 




I have a problem with both Locke’s and Hobbes’ assertions.  First, the idea that all humans are a blank slate when they are born is questionable.  If we all agree that we are born as a blank slate, are we not also saying then that humans are born without a soul?  Furthermore, there are many other angles we can analyze this perspective from; biology, psychology, and sociology may also disprove this theory.  I have a harder time disputing Hobbes theories (perhaps I am not as optimistic as I initially thought I was?).  It is hard to argue that men are not violent in nature, when humanity’s history is wrought in war and violence.  The problem with Hobbes’ perspective is that it does not explain the many human anomalies.  We cannot say all humans are bad when we have had “good” people such as Anne Frank, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. and so many more.



The conflicting opinions of Locke and Hobbes—can we call them propositions when they contradict each other?—lead me to my current understanding of the humanities: the ability to look at humanity with a skeptical mind, to constantly ask questions, and know that there may never be a definitive answer.  (More on this perspective here).  Thus, I have come to the conclusion that I am absolutely certain that I am uncertain whether humans are born “bad” or “good.”  Thanks a lot for bursting my bubble, Hobbes and Locke!




In light of my mere true belief that all humans are born good, I can surmise that Locke may have agreed with my opinion of why people become bad.  This leads me to the age-old theme in storytelling: Man vs. Himself.  We see this theme again and again TV shows such as Dexter, Hannibal, Bates Motel and Breaking Bad.  Protagonists, such as the ones on these shows captivate audiences into rooting for the bad guy.  In fact, their characters are so complex that they make us question if they were ever bad to begin with.







Walter White, the protagonist on Breaking Bad, was by all definitions a “good” guy.  He “breaks” bad after his terminal cancer diagnosis, in other words, when he realizes he has nothing left to lose.  Hobbes fans might say “doesn’t that mean that Walter was bad to begin with, and he only reverted to his true nature of ‘badness’ once he realized his place in society was fleeting?” And perhaps this is correct.  I believe that Mr. White was born “good”; circumstance is what finally broke him.  In all his years of being a doormat, Mr. White was left in the dust, while his peers went on to live successful lives.  Thus, when he got the cancer diagnosis, he decided to take control of his life, and in doing so became consumed with power.  In the end, he even admits to Skyler that he did it (became Heisenberg) for himself. 







 Does this scene give evidence that Hobbes was right about
the nature of man?  Does Walter's confession that he broke bad for 
himself mean he was born bad?  Or does it reinstate Locke's
 argument that our experiences mold who we become?  Perhaps Walter 

realized that leading a "good" life led to an unexceptional life.



Friday, October 9, 2015

What Makes Humans Bad? {Introduction}




Good, Bad, or Grey Zone?


What Makes Humans "Bad"?

To get an understanding of how studies in different knowledge domains impart knowledge, I will be participating in a six-part blog series for the next ten weeks.  The purpose of each post is to measure if some types of knowledge are more significant than others.  The knowledge domains I will be focusing on are the humanities, social and natural sciences.  I will be applying my understanding of these knowledge domains to the theme, “What makes humans bad?”  By the end of the blog series I hope to have a better understanding of what it means to be a “bad” human.     

Why “Bad”?


 The question, “What makes humans bad?” may sound odd at first.  Shouldn’t we be asking, “What makes humans good?”  After all, in a world that’s full of so much hatred and violence, it makes sense to question how people can still be good.  Questioning the “bad” in humans, however, seems to be asking a deeper question.  The implication is that all humans are bad, but is this true?  I hope to find out. 



What is Knowledge?

To better understand the theme, I will be analyzing the theories of knowledge—also known as epistemology—and reviewing different methods of obtaining knowledge.  I have learned that there are two types of knowledge: propositional and ability knowledge.  Propositions knowledge is a proposition that is asserted in a sentence to claim something is true.  Ability knowledge deals with the type of knowledge that is gained through experience, or know-how (Prichard, 2013).  In Duncan Prichard’s “What is knowledge?” readers further find out knowledge can be broken down even further.  If I were to say that there is a rainbow outside, and by sheer luck there actually was a rainbow, would that mean I have some type of weird rainbow knowledge or would it be merely true?  Similarly, if I were to really believe that leprechauns exist, so much so that I somehow knew this to be true, would I be correct?  The answer to both questions is no.  One cannot gain knowledge by chance or by only believing; instead, we call this mere true belief.  It is likely that nearly everyone has held a mere true belief at one point in his or her lifetime.     

What if My Mere True Beliefs Are Wrong???

Through the process of blogging I will likely make several errors and will have to adapt to an optimistic model of wrongness. According to Kathryn Schulz a person that exhibits an optimistic model of wrongness welcomes mistakes and eventually, through discovery, arrives at an answer.  A pessimistic model of error, on the other hand, does not welcome errors or failure.  By having a pessimistic model of error, I can deprive myself from gaining knowledge (Schulz, 2011).

To get the most out of this experience I should also remember to have a growth mindset.  When someone has a growth mindset, it means that they are willing to continue learning, despite not understanding the content (Dweck, 2006).  One must be able to come out of his or her comfort zone and explore new ideas.  In the following video, Carol Dweck discusses “the power of yet.”  She argues that instead of looking at a situation as a failure, we should look it as “not yet.”  By this, she means that just because you did not succeed the first time, does not mean you will never succeed.  She also gives further insight on what it means to have fixed (not being comfortable embracing a challenge) and growth mindsets.  At 5:02 Dweck discusses the benefits having a growth mindset can have on the brain:



What I Currently Know About What Makes Humans “Bad”

The notion that all humans are bad strikes me as highly pessimistic.  As someone who tries to see the good in any situation, my perspective has always leaned more towards the idea that everyone has a little good in them.  While I pride myself in being optimistic, I can see that humanity cannot be viewed in these black and white terms.  What I once held to be true may actually be a mere true belief; I have no evidence that humans are good to their core, rather than bad.  Perhaps, human characteristics, such as good and evil, fall under a "grey zone."  

The morals that we value also play a role on our "goodness" or "badness."  Judging other's morality has commonly been the way humans have gauged the character of others.  The problem with this, however, is that every individual person has a different perspective on what is morally right or wrong.  My opinion of what qualifies someone as being a bad human, for example, may be very different from the opinions of my protestant neighbor or my atheist brother.  Another way to look at it is to think of this age-old question: is it morally wrong to steal a loaf of bread if it is intended to feed your family?  This question has been debated in many college campuses for some time, and while I do not claim to know the answer, it may show us that there is not one true measure of “badness.”           
 


I do not know if I can answer the question “what makes humans bad?”  I am not sure that this question is intended to be answered, but rather to open our minds to the possibility that humanity cannot be defined as good or bad.  I believe that we posses these traits—along with others—to different degrees.  Human morality may be similar to the ying and yang: we have both good and bad in us, however some of us possess more or less of either.




Perhaps Sirius Black said it best: