I have to admit, one of my least favourite things to hear about is when people do something and then try and pass it off as “just part of human nature”. I have to say that I disagree on the whole notion that we even have a “human nature”. Those things that have natures are wild, and generally free from any moral implications of their actions simply because they are doing “what is natural”. One of the issues with humanity still having a “nature” is that it is counterintuitive to the fact that we also wish to hold people morally accountable for their actions. To say that something is part of human nature at this point in the human development cycle, is essentially to say that we should not hold you, or that person thereof accountable for anything. Morality negates nature…that is the basics of it.
I do wish to dive in a little deeper and explain my position on this, and since this is one of the MAJOR founding principles of Anti-Humanism as a whole, this will of course be included in many of my works including a book of its own touching on this subject in the future. For now, this is just a little taster to see how it can be received.
Animals, by their very nature, are wild creatures that exist in a very different way from us. I am not going to go down the road of saying “we are different from the animals because (insert random bullshit thing here)”, but instead I will be saying that animals are not expected to weigh the pros and cons of any of their actions, wild animals especially. None of us, in our right minds would blame and animal for hunting and killing another, yet we as humans blame each other and incarcerate people for doing that. How can we still claim to have a nature, if we expect people to be held morally accountable for their actions? I am on the side of accountability, do not get me wrong, but I have to raise the question this way, because that is one of the major things setting us apart from the animals, higher levels of thinking.
This higher thought is something that allows us not only to plan ahead (which animals cannot do), but also to have a sense of guilt and moral accountability which is something that we built into ourselves tens of thousands of years ago as we evolved into Homo Sapiens. If there was ever a time that the closest relative to a human had anything close to this “nature” that others speak of then it would have to be somewhere down the line of 50-100 thousand years ago. Humanity in and of itself has always attempted to pride itself on a higher plane than that of the animals…yet we still use language that compares us to them. Why? Are we not better than them? Are we not the masters of the planet? The Alphas if you will? I think so, or at the very least I would hope so, and if there is anything that I have learnt from my years in the 2010s it is that we need to change the language that we use in order to convey proper meaning, so in this same sense we need to change the use of the phrase “Human Nature” since IT DOES NOT EXIST!
The one final thing that I can say that should be the game breaking piece of this puzzle of what I am saying, is that when looking at animals you cannot tell them apart usually from their mannerisms. Animals get to have a nature, because that is their driving force of life. They do not really have a choice as to what drives them to survive. They cannot have goals and higher levels of thought. Since that is the way that they exist they get the ability to have a nature, but we have evolved beyond that. We are moral creatures; we are able to hold each other accountable and be respectful. We cannot anymore state that we have a “nature” because that is a bit of an oxymoron for us. Morality cannot exist where nature does. Flowers and Trees have no morality, animals are not beholden to any moral standards, but we have for centuries, nay, millennia beholden ourselves to various methods of keeping ourselves in line via some sort of morality (education, laws, religion, etc.) and because of that, we have destroyed the nature that we could have had…but society would not exist if we had only a nature and no morality.
It is worth the trade off in my opinion.