Is human good or bad by nature? Is there justice?

On the nature of man much has been studied in the past, since the importance of this question affects very different fields, in fact, to all fields where man himself plays an important role.

The belief that man is evil by nature, on the one hand, often results in misanthropy, and as such, destructive currents for the human species, in which, by hatred of human nature, it seeks to restrict their natural attitudes, and it seeks to transform man into something that is not. On the other hand, the belief that man is good by nature usually results not in philanthropy, but in naiveté, and in excessive trust in the goodness of others, often accompanied by profligate thoughts, which end up believing that not only what the human being does is good, but all that he can do, is also good.

What would you say? Is human good or bad by nature? And remember that the answer will be nothing but a projection of yourself, because you are the human you study.

But if you analyze it well, you will notice that the question is itself vitiated, man cannot be good or bad by nature, the only thing that can be good by nature is the good, and the only thing that can be bad or evil by nature is the evil.

The human, like everything in the physical plane, is a compound, a set of many things; a set of matter, a set of ideas, and as such, is of a changing nature. Only what is simple, that is, what is in itself, is not changeable; the essence.

Man can't be good by nature, because good by nature is only the good, and man can't be evil by nature, because evil by nature is only the evil, but man is by nature man and nothing else.

And I know that to many it may seem confusing, that's why I will try to explain myself better. Therefore, first let's define the basic concepts.

What is good and what is evil?

Good is a quality, an idea or form, that is, a simple one, what do I mean by simple? that it is not composed, that is, the good cannot be anything other than good; the good cannot be red, it cannot be ugly, it cannot be round, much less it can be bad, the good is only good and nothing else.

Bad is also a quality; the bad cannot be blue, cannot be tasty, cannot be square, and much less can be good, the bad is only bad and nothing else.

However, these two qualities are opposed, something can be beautiful and good, or ugly and bad, but nothing can be good and bad at the same time, which means that the more goodness exists in something, the less badness there will be in that, and vice versa.

In the same way, for something to be "more good", it must have been "more bad". If you are more good today than yesterday, then yesterday you were more bad than today, and so with all the other qualities. Everything arises from its opposite, the bad arises from the good and the good from the bad, except the opposites themselves, that is, something to be more good must have been in the past more bad, but good in itself cannot be more good or more bad.

They are then, in spite of conceptual dualism, good and bad the same thing, being that good is something, and evil is nothing, or in other words, good is the existence of good, and bad is precisely his absence.

Man, unlike good or evil, is a compound, man can be white, fat, tall, fast, strong, quiet, and many other things at the same time.

However, man has something simple, that is, something unchanging in him, his essence, because during his life he changes in all his compounds, that is, he grows, gets fatter, becomes smarter, faster, stronger, even her skin color, which is not monochromatic, changes. But that which does not change, that which is its essence, is the only thing that man is by nature.

That essence, which is all the immutable that a man possesses, is what makes that the you of 20 years ago and the you of the now are the same, in spite of being so different, and physically, being another totally unlike thing.

Then, recapitulating, if man were by nature good or bad, these things would be part of his essence, therefore, immutable, so that the man at birth good could never be bad, and vice versa. But since we know that this is not the case, and that the goodness/badness of a man can change, we can conclude that man is not good or bad by nature.

This being the result, what then is what makes man good or bad?

For this point we would go into somewhat more diffuse concepts, but before defining this I think it is important to address a topic that will answer subsequently to this question; Is there justice? and if so, is nature fair?

Both are very easy questions to answer, if we define justice as "the action of giving each one what corresponds to him", which I believe is a definition with which everyone could agree, then we cannot say more that there is justice, and that nature is also just, because it certainly gives each one what corresponds to him.

If man thinks he has a better judgment than judgment itself, that is, if man believes to be more just than natural justice, which is essentially just, since it is a simple one as good, then the one who is wrong is man. Man cannot be more just than nature, because it is precisely in nature that justice is found, and to say that man is more just than nature is a paradox, because it would be to affirm that man is more just than justice, which is nonsense.

But as we already affirmed that the only thing that is by nature man is man and not good, neither is man by nature just or unjust, and his judgments vary, being that it is up to man to be just in some occasions and unjust in others.

Nature is just because it gives man, and everything else, exactly what it deserves according to the parameters predisposed by nature itself. Man is just when he acts in accordance with nature and unjust when the contrary, in the same way, man is good when he acts in accordance with nature and bad when he opposes it.

This is because justice and good transcend man, exist "independently" of him, therefore, although man may not know them, they will influence him.

In this way, nature itself encourages good and encourages justice, since by giving each man what he deserves, it does not put obstacles in the way of those who act in accordance with it, and those who wish to oppose it are dragged by the tide. This is very similar to the concept of free market.

Why would someone contradict nature if the incentives are set to follow it?

Simple, because it does not know the incentives. Then ignorance is the cause of evil, because it is the ignorance of the good that makes man bad. Someone could argue; What if someone does something that they know is wrong? Then indeed that person would know that it is wrong, but he would not understand it, that is, he would not know why that is wrong, since his knowledge is merely a label, something superficial, but he does not really know what he does.

The man who does bad is because he doesn't know that is bad, he can know that what he does is labeled as bad by others and by society, and he may dislike that, but if he understood why that is bad, then he would not. This is because, as we said before, nature rewards the good and punishes the bad, if the man understood that what is bad instead of benefiting is going to harm him, he did not do it, but as the man tends to be short-termist and think about immediate issues, don't realize that what it does, while it can bring an immediate benefit, will bring long-term damage.

If nature rewarded evil, then two things would happen; the first, we would consider the bad as good, and the good as bad, being the nature that decides what is each thing, or the second, the world was totally self-destructive, being that the bad is destructive and the good creative. But as we have already seen, it is not like that.

Conclusion

Let's summarize for a moment what we have defined so far:

• Man is not good or bad by nature, nor just or unjust by nature, since if it were any of these things, it would be impossible for him to be the other; if man were good by nature, good would be part of his essence and could not be under any circumstances bad. The same goes for justice.

• Nature is always good and just, and everything that follows shares its attributes. On the contrary, everything that is contrary to nature is always bad and unjust, and cannot be lasting, since nature is precisely lasting, its opposite is perishable.

• Good derives from its knowledge, from the understanding of why, and is rewarded by nature. The bad derives from the ignorance of the good, from being detachment of it, and is punished by nature.

What can we do then as a society? Maybe it would be the last question. Many will support the idea of society rewarding the good and punishing the bad, the problem with this approach, although it is correct, is that the man is not omniscient, and therefore, does not know the good or the bad in its entirety, and does not have certainty, the social man makes judgments of values, therefore, can erroneously judge, and therefore be unfair, which would condemn society to failure.

A more accurate approach would be to promote freedom, in the same way that is done in economics, since natural incentives are already given for good to overlap, however, this approach, while perfect, needs equally perfect humans, since men should recognize the power of nature's judgment, and however unfair it may seem to them, they should accept it, which is far from happening.

It is false what many suppose that in the natural law the strongest one overcomes, if this were the case today we will be ruled by lions or other animals, in natural law, the most capable, that is, the most intelligent, who knows how to act with greater agreement with nature, is superimposed and, as we have already explained, to be intelligent and act in favor of nature, good is a sine qua non requirement.

Therefore, the most accurate approach that I would defend, would be the subdivision of each region of the planet following a moral law proper to its population, and that men, as a matter of trial and error, were evolving into a more advanced society, that is, a society where the law is the natural law; to the knowledge of transcendental morality. This is because, as we mentioned before, it would be quite difficult to apply natural laws to men who are so far from nature that they even consider it as hostile.

The natural order must, and always, prevail, since it is in nature that the truth is found and not in man. Man cannot fight against nature, nor deny it, because essentially he part of it. If you look for the good, the justice, and ultimately, the truth, you must act with and for nature, knowing that the more obstacles you put to it, the more you will get away from such virtues.

If you are of the opinion that the truth does not exist, you can pass with pleasure for here. I will conclude this deliberation then, is free to ignore what I said, or take it, or better yet, leave a comment letting me know your opinion.

---

Image Source: 1, 2, 3