"Humans are like trout"

In this last post in this week's mini-series on human nature, I want to move past Hobbes and Rousseau and give my answer to the question "Are humans naturally good or bad?"

But first, I want to comment on why this question sticks around. Obviously, the question "Are humans good or bad?" cannot really be answered. For two big reasons. First, the question is essentialist. And humans do not have a singular essence. As I will argue, humans are a mixed bag of tendencies. Second, "good" and "bad" from what perspective?

So, it is clearly a poor question to ask "Are humans good or bad?" But still the question lingers. Why?

Well, any systematic theory involving humans--for the theory to be descriptive, explanatory, or predictive--will need to take the measure of humanity. What kind of creature is a man or a woman? Thus, as we saw with Hobbes and Rousseau, grand political theories will need to specify the kind of creature they take man to be. In America today, we see views of man embedded in the political discourse between conservatives and liberals. Each has its own view of man (I will leave it to you to determine which political party is Hobbesian and which is Rousseauian). In short, to create a grand political theory one will need to specify man's "nature." And this specification will, of necessity, take an essentialist bent.

In a similar way, grand theological schemes will also need to specify the nature and capacities of man. For example, the doctrine of original sin or total human depravity is Hobbesian in theme: Man is base and corrupt. Other theological systems have more optimistic views of man. On my campus, the theologians typically speak of a particular theological system having a High View of Man or a Low View of Man. That is, theological systems tend to be either Hobbesian or Rousseauian. Consequently, most theological accounts of man tend to also have an essentialist flavor.

To illustrate this essentialist thinking in theology, a few years ago I went around to some of my theological friends with an admittedly bizarre question: Can a person sin on a deserted island? (That is, deserted until you showed up.) Putting aside blaspheming God or having sex with animals (two examples my students quickly came up with), it seems kind of hard to sin on a deserted island: You can't steal, lie, envy, covet, kill, gossip, cheat, or horde. But the minute you put a SECOND person on the island, well, every sin in the book is now possible. The point I was trying to make was that sin, as I saw it, was fundamentally a situational social issue. But most of my theological friends disagreed. Sin isn't situational, social, or behavioral. Sin is a Condition a State that Men are In. Note that these friends were not Calvinists nor did they believe in Original Sin, but they still had this essentialist thinking when they approached the issue.

To summarize, any grand political or theological system tends to require an essentialist account of man. And the most important account to give, for these theories, is about man's moral essence: Are humans good or bad? Thus, although this question seems ill-posed and naive, it continues to linger in the background of most theological and political discussions.

All this brings me to an ACU forum I spoke at a few years ago hosted by the Graduate Student Association which is mostly populated by Graduate School of Theology students. The topic was on Human Nature and generally was to dwell on the question "Are humans good or bad?" Given what I've just said about theological systems requiring an essentialist take on Man, it is no surprise that theology students wanted to discuss this High View of Man versus Low View of Man debate.

When it was my turn to speak, I opened with this comment: "I want to say that humans are like trout."

The profundity of this comment was generally lost on the audience. I also wanted it to be funny, but no one laughed. Oh well. Apparently you can't be profound and funny at the same time.

Here is what I was trying to get at. As a psychologist, I don't think about humans in essentialist terms. I'm much more descriptive. The question I ask first is not "Are humans good or bad?" but "What are the behavioral tendencies of humans?" Once this question gets answered, then perhaps we might get back to the "good vs. bad" issue.

So, I approach humans the way a naturalist would approach a trout. What are trout like? Where do they live? How do they find food? How do they relate to each other? How do they mate? What is their behavioral repertoire?

In short, social scientists don't typically ask if humans are good or bad. And fishermen don't have High vs. Low Views of Trout. What I was trying to do in the forum with the trout comment was to snap the theology students out of the spell of the whole "High vs. Low" debate. I don't think I was very successful in this, but that is what I was trying to do.

So, rejecting the High vs. Low debate, what are the behavioral tendencies of human nature? Well, that is a long list, but for sake of illustration I'll pick a few behavioral tendencies to illustrate how I approach the "good vs. bad" issue in humans.

Here are a few universal human tendencies:

1. Humans are social.
2. Humans are religious.
3. Humans have a moral psychology based on kinship bonds and reciprocity.

Are these tendencies good or bad? Well, it depends. And that is my point. To illustrate, let's consider the good and bad of humans being social creatures. Preachers talk all the time about the ideals of "community" and the demise of true community in American society. So, community would appear to be a "good" thing. But the communal nature of humans also produces a lot of bad stuff. Wars are inherently communal acts. Further, we have in-group bias, groupthink, group conformity, social pressure, social stigma, shame, social loafing, and good old fashioned social cliques. The point is, community can be good or bad depending upon how you use it.

How about the religious impulse in humans? Good or bad? Well, it seems good. But do I really need to begin the list of the evils associated with religion? So, again, the answer about the goodness or badness of religion is, it depends.

How about family values? Good or bad? Generally they are a good thing. But Jesus said, "If you love only your brothers..." So again it depends.

How about reciprocity? You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours is a good thing. How about an eye for an eye? Well...

And on and on.

So, are humans good or bad? Well, it depends. The evaluation of human goodness has to be, in my mind, a situational and behavioral assessment. Man has no essence. Thus, any theological formulation based on a High View or a Low View of Man is wrongheaded. Rather, Man is a suite of behavioral tendencies and biases that, depending upon the situation, can lead to virtue or vice. That is how we should think about the issue.

My conclusion is this: If theology wants to speculate on human nature it needs to move past the High vs. Low View of Man and wrestle directly with the object under consideration: Humans as they exist in the world. And you cannot know how humans REALLY are by reading the Bible. (This is not to say that you cannot learn about human psychology by reading the Bible. Of course you can. It is just that the Bible isn't trying to be the definitive statement on human psychology. If the Bible did make that claim it sure left a lot out.)

In many ways, this is what this blog is all about. This blog is an attempt to describe human nature bit by bit. This is the only way can go about this task--bit by bit--as man has no essence. And then with each bit in hand, we try to link each to a biblical or theological witness. I'm not a trained theologian, but I can collect the bits and make preliminary connections to theology. Others will have to clean up this work, theologically speaking. But this is the only way I see to go about this project. You cannot start with broad declarations of a High or Low View of Man.

And after I accomplish this task for humans, I'm going to start a blog about trout.