Are we naturally good people?
- JM Valat De Córdova
- 6 hours ago
- 8 min read
(CAMBRIDGE, MA) – There is a simple question that has eluded and captivated many along the walks of life, and those who would consider themselves lovers of wisdom and knowledge alike are humans within a state of nature, inherently good or in an anarchic and negative state. Hobbes and others have long argued that humanity created society explicitly to avoid the anarchic and horrifying state of nature. Others, like Rousseau and one would suppose devout Christians, believe that in the state of nature, man is inherently good. Rousseau makes a profound argument that this article will espouse and develop further upon, that while humanity was good and harmonious in the state of nature, the original sin of creating civilization cannot and must not be undone. That we may never return to that beautiful and natural state in which we were inherently good.
The position of this article is that humans are inherently good and constantly strive towards the position that we as a species once found ourselves in the state of nature. In fact, when we develop further technologies and develop our economies, it is simply to return to those original societies in which all had enough to eat and function. It is the eternal struggle of humanity that we attempt to be good in systems currently constructed to exploit the worst parts of nature (competition, greed, e.t.c.,) within which we attempt to impose moralistic themes of economic justice. It is not the position of this article that we must then further liberalize and decentralize the market, but rather, upend the existing structures that function in a manner that is more in line with what I will term ‘economic democracy’ and ‘progressive justice.’
“You can call it democracy or democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth in this country [America]” is a famous quote from revered civil rights activist and reverend, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is often posited by conservatives (some time around MLK Jr., Day) that if Dr. King were alive today, he would be a conservative. Having read his last book (published mere months before his assassination), I can tell you with some degree of certainty that he would not be. In fact, in this book, he argues for a version of Universal Basic Income (an often-derided progressive policy proposal). I use Dr. King as an example of the simple ideal that all people strive for what they believe is the common good, and in this (and as far as I am aware, all) case, I happen to agree with Dr. King that this would be in the common good.
Now, you may be asking yourself, what does this have to do with the state of nature? Very good question, imagined reader, it has to do with the state of nature by relating explicitly to my presupposed notion that most, if not all, people strive to act against the parts of our nature which the current economic systems strive to exploit.
Still not convinced? That’s alright, I have more to say. Graeber, in his work “title of his book which I am forgetting right now,” argues that all economies, even capitalistic ones, are built upon three moral foundations of: exchange, communism, and hierarchy. Graeber utilized a definition of communism that would make a committed Orthodox Marxist cringe, but as I am not an orthodox Marxist, I will use it for my argument. Graeber argues that communistic morals are the foundation of what can essentially be summed up as close relationships between friends, or family, in which people give without an expectation that they will be given anything back that they don’t need.
This is essentially built upon the infamous Marx quote, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Graeber essentially argues that these communistic morals are the foundation of any market economy. Ostensibly arguing that if rational economic “exchange” relationships were as pervasive as some believe, then children would simply starve, as they provide no meaningful and immediate economic benefit. We know that this doesn’t happen. Why? According to Graeber, because of communist morals. Without communism, capitalism would collapse in on itself.
Now let’s return to the original question: are humans inherently good? If we were inherently anarchic and chaotic, as Hobbes and his ilk suggest, there would be no irrational actions under an exchange-dominated economy, and we wouldn’t have communistic ethics in a capitalistic system.
Now, you may say we inherently calculate that children have a good ROI, but if you did, you would be an insane economics-major-brained psychopath. We keep our children alive because it is our inherent duty. We do it because we know it to be the right thing. It is for that same reason that we give strangers directions or we give a homeless person some cash. We don’t expect anything back, we act irrationally, and we embrace our inherent humanity.
Some time ago, I posited that capitalism and the capitalistic work ethic is “anti-human” (link to article). If we are to presuppose this notion (which, to be clear, is a big if and I am aware of this), then we must presume that capitalism is exploiting parts of our existence which does not naturally occur. Meaning that, capitalism makes us worse people, that desperation, deprivation, and the fear of those things drive us to do horrid things we’d never otherwise consider. We’d always give money to the homeless people if we weren’t in an exchange-dominant society.
Humans are inherently good. In that state of nature, there are no or very few markets. There is little inherent striving for the most resources (otherwise known as greed) among most. In fact, in tribal economies that have been observed, it is often seen that people contribute to society because it is their duty. Oftentimes, it is wrapped up in religious notions or other non-maximalizing aims, but it is done for a greater purpose. Not because each individual is guaranteed more food or more resources, but because they know that if they do not act, then no one eats.
Everyone starves. They know that if they don’t do what they need to for a greater society, then that society collapses. This, to be clear, isn’t even the state of nature. These are societies that have developed in a completely different manner from European and Western societies. Often, with less emphasis put on the exchange morality that Graeber believes underpins all societies to some extent.
Which is to say that we were even better people than this, far before we were born, and before we kept any records. But that we may never return to this nature. Not without destroying all that which we love. So what must we do?
It’s simple, we must have progressive justice and economic democracy. Now, you may not know what I mean by that, and that’s reasonable, particularly because I haven’t told you. Simply put, economic democracy, to my mind, is government control of essential industries without which market mechanisms and society itself might collapse (health, water, electricity) and the co-operatization of other private markets.
Meaning that, most, if not all, companies held currently on stock exchanges, would have majority beneficial ownership of workers within that company. Some parts of the company might even be traded on exchanges if those workers, all of whom would have equal voting rights, agreed. Simply put, all of the economy would, in some manner, have direct or indirect democratic control. In fact, under this system, you (presuming you are not, for instance, a managing director at BlackRock) would have a larger say over what happens in your company.
It would be, in essence, an end to oligarchic power structures and also an end to capitalism, if fully implemented. It would not be the end of all markets. This idea is derived from the work of Marxist New School professor Richard Wolff. It is a type of market socialism that rulers like Tito once implemented. And it is known to be beneficial to all involved. In fact, I believe this so much that the company via which I am publishing this article, one that I founded, is in effect a cooperative corporation where all workers have equal voting rights.
What does this have to do with the state of nature?
Simply put, whilst we may never go back, our eternal struggle to be good people will always dominate those amoral market forces. Communistic ethics, that is to say, is not closer to the state of nature, but rather an ethical framework that exploits the better parts of human nature for the betterment of all, collectively. I am not, however, a communist.
As a committed democratic socialist, I must say that we will all have to choose to potentially lose some capital to ensure a future for all people and types of people, equally. That, in short, is my progressive justice. I believe in freedom and democracy so much that I refuse to impose what I know to be a better future for all. But I do, strongly, strongly, urge that we return to the better parts of nature, and undo some of the structures that exploit the baser parts of our nature.
It is clear to me that humans are inherently good. We are inherently able to find beauty, purpose, and goodness in all systems. Even those systems that find the worst parts of us. I am not in this essay saying that we’re all bad people under capitalism. I’m in fact saying the opposite; it is because we know we can strive for true freedom, outside the capitalistic structure, that we know we’re good. Every day, we gift free pieces of knowledge and irrationally help those with no hope of anything in return, which we defy exchange-based logic. In fact, we are good because we know that without gift-giving, without Graeber’s Communistic morality (which is arguably not really communism) we wouldn’t survive.
In fact, it shows that within us is a person who inherently knows that the simplest of principles is true. We must work, do good, be purposeful, because we know that we don’t want our families, our friends, our society to starve. We work because we know that others will benefit, not because we think we may. It is, in fact, this very reason that many give for having high-paying jobs, ‘so my family can be comfortable,’ and it’s this that gives me hope.
Because we should (and do) all know that under a fairer system, we wouldn’t have to wait until the Social Security checks hit to be free. We know that in a truly free system, we wouldn’t have to chose higher paying jobs. We know that in the future we will be free from want, free from poverty, and we will have a collective freedom to enjoy a decarbonized world.
Today we are free to work for someone else, tomorrow we will be free to work for no one. In fact, full unemployment is true freedom. The freedom to leisurely do everything and nothing. The freedom to choose what we wish to do, and not what is most productive. Not only because we know that we will produce enough for all, but because we have an inherent trust in each other that in America we currently lack. America, as of recent polling, is the only country in the world that believes more in the idea that most of their fellow citizens are bad people than in the idea that most of us are good people.
I am here to argue for the minority, in the idea that whilst many of us are brainwashed into greed, into racism, into hatred. That, in fact, America at the very least used to be a nation that believed in good things, made up of good people. That we are a country, like all countries, made up of good people, within the state of nature. And that if there are many bad people here today, it is because we were indoctrinated into believing in an anti-human system that exploits us and tells us to exploit others.
We're good people, we just have to start believing in ourselves again. We have to have, to use MLK's words again, "a better distribution of wealth in this country," and personally, I call it democratic socialism. What will you do to remind yourself that we're all born good people? Will you resist your hatred? I hope so. It's in your nature. It's in that divinely inspired nature which inhabits all of us, the nature of the good, the nature of that which we all agree, we all like that which is good for all. So once again, embrace your better nature, give a big tip without expectations for better service.
Be good for the sake of it. I already know you want to.
