Some thoughts about human nature

 

 

I begin this entry by thanking Michael Scaperlanda for his posting earlier today bringing to our attention the quotation from Kingsley Martin on human nature: “The clue to the political thought of any period lies in the conflict between various views of human nature.”

I for one would agree that such a sentiment, i.e., the conflict of various views of human nature, has fueled the development of political thought across the centuries. But I think that today we are seeing some evidence of a change—a change that I suggest does not necessarily mean something better regarding conflicts in political thought. This past year I offered a course at Boston College Law School entitled “Natural Law and Natural Rights.” I shall be offering the course again this year in a new venue, Loyola University Chicago.

During the discussions that took place at Boston College, I was surprised to see the degree to which some young, energetic, and clever minds quickly dismissed the existence of the concept which is called “human nature.” It struck me then, and it still does today, that if one does not consider that there is such a thing as human nature, there cannot be conflicts between or among differing views of that which is denied.

Here is a challenge for those interested in Catholic Legal Theory and its development. Are we—those who are presumably doing something to enhance CLT—doing enough to investigate with our students, colleagues, and anyone else we encounter the idea of human nature. It seems for the longest time that the Catholic intellectual tradition was quite interested in studying, discussing, and investigating further human nature and the essence of the human person. After all, discussions about essence and nature had long been a part of the important studies that took place in Catholic educational institutions. But, have we reached the stage that these sorts of inquiry no longer merit sufficient interest to continue their examination?

If so, then I think we face a dark future where offering an answer to the question what is constitutive of human nature can escape a purely subjective explanation about who or what the human person is. This is not the same issue presented by the conflict of various views of human nature. The issue now seems to be whether there are sufficiently universal characteristics about human beingness to indicate that there is an essence, a nature about humans that can supply an idea, theory, or concept of “human nature.”

As a way of beginning to address this issue, assuming that it is of sufficient interest to others, may reside within the thought of Jacques Maritain. Some years ago, in 1943 to be more precise, Maritain began wrestling with work that would lead him to chair the UNESCO committee advising the drafting committee that would produce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In his own contribution, Maritain raised an important initial question about whether man was a means to an end or an end in himself or herself. He answered his own question by suggesting that there are things due to the person purely on the basis that he or she is man. If Maritain was on to something, and again I suggest that he was, would his thinking provide some resolution to how the conflict between various perspectives on human nature is to be settled knowing that there is an essence or nature about being human?

 

RJA sj