'Are Humans Fundamentally Good?"

CAERS SUBSTACK ARTICLE #91

‘Are Humans Fundamentally Good?’

CAERS Substack Article #91

Optimists have a tendency to believe that humans are fundamentally good. Some religions promote such a perspective, particularly those that maintain that we are made in the image of God.

Pessimists, on the other hand, tend to think of humans as so fundamentally flawed and prone to selfishness that we are not good by nature and we therefore have to work very hard to do good things.

What do you think? Is the question a sensible and useful one, or is it overly simplistic?

It strikes me that the question is a binary one that appears to support a binary answer in return: we are either one or the other.

However, I suspect with few exceptions that each one of us is born with a moral compass, a conscience. Equally, I suspect with few exceptions that every one of us is born with an innate drive for self-preservation and as a consequence we are inherently programmed to seek pleasure (indicating safety and continued existence) and avoid pain (which warns of danger and the potential for death).

If I am correct, some very serious ramifications flow from these realities, especially with respect to the question about whether we are fundamentally good. As the only fully sentient and self- conscious creature on the planet, we have inherited an inevitable tension when it comes to our nature: although we all have a moral compass to help guide us in our treatment of others, we are also programmed to look out for ‘number one’ at almost any cost.

So it may be that we are neither purely fundamentally good nor bad, but rather that we are saddled with the immense challenge of balancing our two sometimes opposing natures on a minute-by-minute basis. At any given moment, each of us has the potential to be a hero or a villain, but the more we control our narcissistic ego urges and the more we nurture our moral compass the more likely we are in any particular situation to do good for others while still caring for ourselves. The second we forget this is the second that we can devolve into abominable behaviour.

Virtually all actors in a war believe that they are on the side of right, or else they would not be able to continue to fight and sacrifice for their cause. They likely also believe that the enemy has behaved with unspeakable cruelty in a way that their own side has not. This stems from a binary thinking that identifies one actor or cause or ideology as ‘good’, and another, seemingly contrary one, as ‘bad’. We may think that such extreme views occur only in times of war, but in fact such binary thinking is universally common in everyday life.

We are surrounded by evidence of this on a regular basis. Complex problems or scenarios are presented as having only two possible solutions or perspectives. Strong emotions supporting one solution/perspective versus another provide further evidence that our binary brainstem apparatus is in charge. Not infrequently we may discover that the more emotion is in play, the more likely the parts of our brain that can tease out the subtle and important nuances of a situation are not in control.

It is often wise to be cautious when engaging with someone in a situation when they see only two nearly antithetical possibilities, where one is completely good and the other completely bad. Frequently they are falling prey to the fallacy of the false dilemma, believing that only two mutually exclusive options exist when in fact there may be many more. Be on high alert if they are doing so with extreme and unwavering emotion, especially anger or its variations (indignation, demonization, ad hominem language, etc.). It is not uncommon in these instances for individuals to declare that they are loving and open-minded when in fact they are kind only as long as you agree with them. Or they may profess to hear what you say but have little desire to truly understand you. Being very entrenched in any viewpoint can interfere with the respectful listening and charity needed to change one’s mind.

Finding common ground for constructive dialogue is not always possible, but when it is, letting go of binary thinking is often a prerequisite. If we want to ‘do good’ and make the world a better place, we do not have to avoid engaging in thoughts and behaviours which benefit us provided that they are intended and motivated to help, or at least not harm, others. Doing good also means following your moral compass even when it is not popular to do so, when it may radically alter interpersonal relationships that really matter to you, and even when it may bring you harm. Being the most social species on the planet that also seeks pleasure and avoids pain, these are a tough pills to swallow. We are sometimes left with the choice to either follow our inner moral code and be alone (or worse still be considered a pariah), or go along with our tribe without question.

So perhaps rather than ask the question ‘Are humans fundamentally good?’ it is more helpful to recognize our tendencies for both binary thinking and binary behaviour and learn how to manage them better. There can be an intrinsic tension between looking out for our own interests and welfare, and caring about the interests and welfare of others, and this tension is often best dealt with by avoiding either binary extreme. The same is often true of binary thinking—humbly looking for solutions along the spectrum will often identify places where common ground can be found.

We are all imperfect and impressionable beings who can get caught up in ideologies and who can fall prey to the lure of pleasure, money, power and fame. There are no exceptions. And there are no systems, political or otherwise, that can eliminate that; they can only hope to contend with it. Doing good will always be a struggle for us, not because we are fundamentally bad but because existence involves a fundamental tension. The better we manage that tension, the better our lives and our world. There are no easy answers, and that is why we need to ask questions, to be skeptical of simplistic solutions, and to monitor the answers we find.

How well did we manage this tension during the pandemic? Have we learned all that there was to learn about ourselves from our experiences? There is still time, but only if we choose to do so.

J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)

CAERS Health Intake Facilitator