Is there a human nature?
Do we make ourselves, or are we born to be something?
I
Existence precedes essence
There is no fixed human nature. We make ourselves through our choices, and are wholly responsible for what we become.
- Best argument
- Without a creator, there is nothing to assign us a purpose. And experience bears this out: people reinvent themselves, overcome their pasts, and become what no one predicted. Pretending otherwise is what Sartre called bad faith, like the waiter who plays at being a waiter so completely that he denies his own freedom.
- Strongest objection
- Science tells us a great deal about human nature: our evolved emotions, our genetic predispositions, our shared cognitive biases. Identical twins raised apart show striking similarities. We are not blank slates who author ourselves from scratch.
- The reply
- Sartre accepted that we have facticity, given facts like our bodies, history and situation. His claim is that these do not settle what we make of them. A predisposition is not a destiny.
- Defended by
- Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir
II
There is a human nature
Humans have a nature, a set of capacities and needs that define what it is to live well as one of us.
- Best argument
- Aristotle argued that the good life for any creature depends on what kind of creature it is. Humans are rational and social, so we flourish by exercising reason and living well with others. Contemporary evolutionary psychology and neuroscience reinforce the point: human beings share deep, universal features.
- Strongest objection
- Claims about human nature have often been used to justify oppression, for example by declaring women naturally suited to domestic life. Simone de Beauvoir argued that 'one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman': much of what is called nature is social construction.
- The reply
- Natural law and virtue theorists answer that the abuse of an idea does not refute it, and that a correct account of human nature, one that includes our capacity for reason and freedom, would condemn oppression.
- Defended by
- Aristotle, Philippa Foot, Steven Pinker
III
Freedom within limits
We have a partial nature and a partial freedom. We are shaped by biology and culture, but can reflect on and revise what we have been given.
- Best argument
- This middle view, held in various forms by many philosophers today, keeps what is right in both: we are not infinitely plastic, but we are not fixed either. Our capacity to reflect on our desires and change them is itself part of our nature.
- Strongest objection
- Each side says the middle view concedes too much to the other. Sartre would say it is a recipe for excuses; naturalists would say it overrates how much we can change.
- Defended by
- Simone de Beauvoir, Charles Taylor
For the full background, variations and open questions, read the entry: Are you born with a nature?.