Intrinsic qualities of the human experience are a topic that many philosophers and thinkers have brought upon in their works, as well as something people have wondered about in their daily life. While it is impossible to understand where people have originally come, from and how they came to be exactly the way they are, questions of moralistic qualities in relation to human nature are still interesting and useful to consider. One of such questions, is, undoubtedly, whether a person can be inherently kind to another. Many philosophic and psychological approaches assume that people are selfish by nature, actively having to choose understanding, mutual benefit, and compassion in their stride to personally improve and be considered a good person. Similarly, many people hold the belief that the only way to motivate people to move towards self-betterment can come through fear of punishment. To understand whether this belief holds water, one needs to consider whether the fundamental human experience has an aversion to kindness and selfless acts or not. The nature of kindness also must be further questioned.
A: Would you consider humans inherently capable of kindness?
B: As my life has led me to believe, people are presupposed to act in their self-interest, disregarding the feelings of their peers in the face of personal benefit and self-preservation. I have seen many a passerby who would not intervene in a violent confrontation, even when its results are evident to cause much pain and misfortune to others.
A: I would certainly disagree. It is reasonable for people to take their physical safety a priority in many cases, as it is dictated by natural instinct. However, it is similarly expected to see people risk their lives for the sake of others all the same. Did you ever witness a mother, leaping into action to protect her child, even if she is hurt in the process? The desire to protect the weak and shield them from danger is surely a display of kindness.
B: You may be correct, but that kindness only extends to one’s close family, does it not? People are indifferent to the well-being and safety of strangers. When there is no personal investment, there is no incentive to care about others.
A: That belief seems to be far too pessimistic to me. The nature of the human mind is capable of displaying care and compassion to strangers, and you can see that rather clearly any day of the week. Just a few days ago, I was out in town taking a stroll. With the wintry cold weather, it is expected that there would be ice on the road, and I have managed to slip and fall on my back. In a moment, at least two people walking near me have attempted to inquire about my well-being and help me get back on my feet. Were they indifferent, they would have surely ignored my peril and moved on with their day.
B: That is true.
A: Furthermore, you speak of personal investment as if strangers can’t be invested in the lives of other people. I feel that that is not the case. The ones helping are also deriving a benefit from committing a good act. They get to feel content and the satisfaction of the other people being grateful to them. The positive feelings created by helping another person are themselves a motivation to commit acts of kindness.
B: You are correct in that doing good can give a person good reinforcement, however, can a good act fueled by such a selfish motivation be considered kindness?
A: I think it can. We judge actions primarily not by their intentions, but by their results. That said, if I had burned down your house under the pretense of helping you get rid of spiders, you would not consider that kindness, but misguided cruelty. Similarly, good actions can most effectively be judged by the effect they produce.
B: In that framework, can an ill-intentioned person still be considered to be kind despite their desire to harm or benefit from others’ suffering?
A: I believe that as long as the methods and results can be considered to be kind, an act of any intention is a kindness to another person. While I cannot say the same about a person themselves, their actions have produced more kindness in the world. To begin with, I believe that a person can not be driven to act in a selfish or harmful way without sufficient motivation to do so that justifies their outlook. From my perspective, people are more likely to act in a way that benefits others with the intention of helping them.
B: That is understandable, however, how can you say that people are predisposed to act in consideration of others, and not in the interest of the self.
A: I think that the general principles of theology would also serve as a demonstration of human nature. This trend can be seen in many religions of the world, but taking Christianity as an example, one can see the values and visions of human nature people hold inside. God, is often said to have created man in the image of Himself. God is kind, caring for the human’s well-being, and capable of being kind as seen in many people speaking of his miracle-working. Humans, created in the image of the lord, therefore similarly should be capable of showing kindness to other people.
B: That is correct, but your argument presupposes the existence of God, which cannot be taken as a certainty for the sake of this discussion. If the Christian faith is simply a work of fiction, how can you judge the character of humankind by examining God?
A: Certainly, it is brash to assume something of a theologic nature to be a certainty, but even in the case of God not existing, the argument for kindness can still be made. If we are to assume that God is fictional, who is not to say that he was similarly created in an image of the man that seemed to be most accurate to the nature of the people’s minds. As much as we are told to be created in the image of God, God could be created in the image of man.
B: I cannot say I agree with that statement. While the Christian god is shown to be kind and merciful, why are the gods of the old in the times of polytheism were often described as the embodiment of certain vices, often acting as they pleased with no regard for the safety of the wishes of others? Does that not similarly reflect the way people perceived their nature to be?
A: I think you are mistaken with such an assessment. There is a reason for the other gods being selfish and often uncaring, but it does not accurately reflect the ideas of humankind, on the contrary even, serving to alienate them from people and make their nature seem incomprehensible and chaotic. In such stories, The ones that are truly likened to humans are the heroes, brave and clever warriors that aid the weak and sacrifice themselves for the sake of the greater good. In the Christian outlook, the higher beings are being likened to people, while in older stories, the two are being contrasted instead. I think that the purpose of such a portrayal would be to explain the existence of malice and selfishness in the human world if one presupposes that people and inherently kind.
B: That outlook does seem to make sense in the grand scheme of things.