Nature_of_Man

Marina Moes Social 30-1 McBride Nature of Man There has always been great debate about the nature of man, and which actions to take in directing man based on this. The idea that man is irrational refers to the lack of reason or logic used when making decisions. Being concerned only with one's own well being and desires, with no regard for others, is what it is to be selfish. According to the source, man has both of these attributes and therefore needs an authoritarian rule. That is, to have the government assert control over people's lives, but not wholly over economic and social institutions; and to make decisions for the people, who are in submission of the authority. This form of government is opposite of democracy and opposed of individualism. This ideology would be supported by people like Thomas Hobbes. He believed that human nature was about violence and fear, people only cared for themselves thus hurting others to protect themselves. This aggression came from freedom, and so there needs to be security and control for the good of everyone. He saw proof of this from the chaos he experienced during the English Civil War. There are many others who would strongly disagree with this source, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Though society has corrupted them, Rousseau believed humans were born good, free and equal. The solution to this debased society was to have the will of the general public be the absolute authority, where the citizens create laws directly. His perspective was based on the poverty and inequality he saw created by the autocratic government he lived under. Throughout history, there have been many instances where man has been shown to be irrational and selfish. The cases that prove man to be selfless and rational are few and far between. This leads to the idea that the majority of man is, in fact, as the source suggests. If so, then an authoritarian system of government would be ideal; having control over affairs, and providing safety for everyone. There were many times through history where the selfish acts or irrational behaviour of the government caused people to revolt in favour of better conditions. Often times they found this in varying types of authoritarian systems. In Italy, much like many other countries at the time, there were distinct classes, resulting in class struggle. The selfishness of the higher classes and government resulted in labour upset. Using the working class as a base, the Fascist Revolutionary Party gained power. Using an authoritarian government, the leader, Benito Mussolini, was able to get rid of the class conflict, supply jobs to many, introduce minimum wage, eight-hour work days, and limited women's suffrage, among other things. There was still some private business, though the fascist government mostly followed classical liberalism principles. Italy now focussed more on equality than the previous, self-based governing. The country did suffer some losses during the Fascist power, but it introduced new beneficial rights in the process. The creation of the USSR shows the benefits of authoritarianism in controlling the illogical and selfish ways of man. The former Czarist rule placed all riches on to the already wealthy, leading to famine and poor living conditions for the working class. Through the rise of the Communist party, the people became equals. Russia was pulled through an enormous economical and industrial growth. Since the people did not have to fight over an agreement on how things were to be done, decisions were made quickly that ultimately benefited the country. Had the country been run in a way that everyone had a say, selfishness would have prevented the correct decisions to be made, and perhaps Russia would not have caught up to the rest of the world as fast as it did. Eventually the USSR became more totalitarian than authoritarian and, facing war and competition with other countries, had internal conflicts. The good that came from communism out weighs the problems that were faced getting there. These forms of government brought good aspects to otherwise struggling countries because the power was taken away from the irrational public, and put into an authoritarian government, which was able to be decisive and act for the benefit of the country. Had they not been created out of war, but from a thriving country, perhaps they would have been fully successful and able to focus more on the needs of the people. Civil unrest and class struggles caused by selfish nobility and the irrational use of wealth and resources leads people to need control and security in their country, offered by an authoritarian government. Even in the economies of democratic countries, there are times when the selfish behaviour of man, coupled with irrationality, leads to a situation where authoritarianism would prove advantageous. One example was the stock market crash in 1929. This came from the greed-driven market of the United States and other democratic countries. The Great Depression was a result of this crash, and was a wide-spread devastation. If there had been some form of authoritarian system, economic tragedies like that would not happen. The irrational expectations of free market societies would not have been seen, as the government would regulate the economy, keeping a steady balance. More recently, there has been fear of another depression, partly caused by the American free market. Many people have lost jobs. Again, this could have been prevented by government control. Poverty and wealth gaps would not exist. John Lennon would agree that consumerism has made people selfish, and perhaps irrational in their wants. Having an authoritarian government would fix this, the people would not be able to over-consume or have unrealistic expectations in their goods. The economy of countries with democracy fluctuate enormously, resulting from the high consumer wants and illogical demands. With an authoritarian government, the economy would be more steady and reliant. By not allowing unreasonable expectations or consumer greed, perfect authoritarianism can keep economies steady and guarantee a better quality of life for citizens. In theory, a perfect system of authoritarianism should work, and do exactly as it should. In the novel Brave New World, the author describes a world where everything is controlled by the government. This shows a type of authoritarian rule. There is no revolt against the system, for people are kept in control using a drug. There is also no violence, and is generally seen as utopian. The need for the government to control even the thoughts and emotions of the people show how man would be irrational, fighting against something that was built to give them an apparent perfect life, simply because in that world, they wouldn't be able to have certain things they might want. There have been studies showing the irrationality of man, and the lengths that people will follow the instructions of a leader, which shows how an authoritarian system would thrive. In the Stamford Prison Experiment, ordinary students became violent simply because they were put in that role. This shows that even in voluntary environments, man can be irrational, and needs direction, to be kept in the proper place. Something authoritarianism can provide. It can also provide an authority to follow, to lead to success. It is human nature to conform and follow instructions from persons higher up. Conformity was seen in the Solomon Asch experiment, where even if something was against an individual’s common sense, they would follow the majority. The Milgram experiment showed how the large majority of people will do as told, simply because they were told by someone of authority. All of these show why authoritarianism will work. It is in human nature to be irrational and selfish, and how humans need direction from authority, which they will be obedient to simply because it is in their nature. Having an authoritarian system of government would be the most idealistic, simply because it provides for and solves the problems of human nature. There are people who oppose of the source, stating that man is rational and selfless. The Dalai Lama believes that the prime purpose of a person is to help others. This means man is selfless and is best when left to make decisions for themselves. Having an authoritarian government wouldn't be the best choice if this were true. Martin Luther King Jr also agrees with this, stating that a person has not lived until they stop being concerned for themselves, and start caring for humanity as a whole. For the majority of the world, though, it's not. There are individuals who choose others over themselves, but compared to the large population that doesn't, it wouldn't be correct to say that the nature of man is a selfless and rational one. If man is as the source suggests, than democracy would not truly work either. It is based on man being rational in decisions, which isn't always true. This leads to times of good and bad in the economy. Some people may argue that authoritarian is corrupt and evil, but evil is in the perspective. From their point of view, they idealize freedom, which would make having a dictator seem bad. But from people who need a leader, who's current conditions aren't very well, having authoritarianism would be beneficial. Over all, even though there are some exceptions, general mankind does not live for others, and does not use perfect reason for decisions. For this mindset, a stable, controlled government is needed, which authoritarianism can provide. Since man is not rational in decision making, and acts according to his own needs, there must be an authoritarian system in place to keep control and to provide security, stability, and equality. History has shown that during corrupt times, the people need a government to take control and bring the country back to normal. Problems in the free market world, caused by the selfish nature of man, could be controlled by such a government. The very nature of man is one that is irrational and selfish, which needs guidance and a leader. Though there are individuals willing to put others before themselves, the majority of the general public do not, and who act upon their own greed in an irrational manor, not concerned for the effects it has on anything other than themselves. Therefore, the ideal government for man is an authoritarian one, which is able to keep the nature of man in stable, set conditions.