Are Human Beings Inherently Good or Bad?

You may have heard the fable about the two wolves that live inside every person.  The story is usually attributed to the Cherokee Indians.

The short version of the fable is that a good wolf and a bad wolf live inside each of us.  The two wolves are in a fight to take control of us.  The wolf that wins the fight will be the one that we feed.

The wolf fable presents a simple and straightforward view of human nature.  People are capable of both good (being virtuous) and bad (being sinful).  Because God gave us free will, we are all free to choose which path we want to take.

Philosophers and sociologists look at human nature somewhat differently.  In these disciplines human nature varies from a complex subject all the way to a non-subject.

In the end, however, the question still remains.  Are human beings inherently good or bad?”  And there are many thoughts on the answer to this question.

Catholics and Protestants

This wolf story coincides with Catholic teaching on human nature which says we were created good but we are corrupted by sin.  As a result of this, we are both good and bad.

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says of mankind (1707):

“. . . his nature bears the wound of original sin. He is now inclined to evil and subject to error: Man is divided in himself. As a result, the whole life of men, both individual and social, shows itself to be a struggle, and a dramatic one, between good and evil, between light and darkness.”

At least one psychologist agrees with Catholic teaching (and the Cherokees) on this point.  Israel W. Charny says “The obviously correct answer to the question “Is man good or bad?” is that both are very true.”

Martin Luther and John Calvin would not agree with Charny.  They taught that thanks to Adam and Eve, man became evil by nature.

According to Martin Luther, because of the fall, man’s will is “bound to Satan,” and men have nothing “but selfish motives.”  John Calvin was even more adamant about this than Luther.  Calvinism “asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person is enslaved to sin. People are not by nature inclined to love God, but rather to serve their own interests and to reject the rule of God.”

Other Religions

Apparently even Judaism teaches that “people are not basically good.”  Islam, on the other hand, teaches that while humans are “not sinful by nature, humans are vulnerable to temptation.”

And then there is Buddha’s teaching.  Buddha’s teaching on human nature is rather complex because Buddha teaches that there is no such thing as ‘self.’  According to Buddha, “there is nothing permanent underlying your being, nothing like a soul. You are a mind, body, and stream of consciousness. You are not really a being [a substance] but a becoming [an event.]”

Hinduism, like Buddhism, has a complex and somewhat confusing view of human nature.  According to Hinduism, “We are all one and thus radically interconnected with all being. The self or soul within all, the Atman, is connected (identical?) with all other selves.”

Ideological Views

And then there are the ideological views of human nature.  Karl Marx saw human nature completely in terms of man’s sense of self and society.  This materialist view of human beings is also largely espoused by atheists.  Humans are merely the most advanced of all the animals.  As Paul Murano put it, “Man is seen as having no soul, no spiritual component, nothing immaterial that transcends the biologically determined instincts that would allow him to seek the truth and freely choose the good.”

There is also humanism, which is atheistic as well which says that man is basically part of nature.  Humans do, however, have the “ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.”  This stems from our ability to reason.

A New View

According to Randall Smith many modern moral theologians have latched on to yet another view of human nature. They say that “human nature changes over time and between cultures. To be clear, the claim isn’t simply that technology advances and cultures change. Rather, it’s the more radical claim that human nature itself changes.”

Smith cites a number of passages from a book titled “Introduction to Christian Ethics: A Reader” by Ronald P. Hamel and Kenneth B. Himes, OFM to make his point.  According to Smith, the book, published in 1989, “contained articles by most of the most prominent moral theologians of the day, such as Charles Curran, Bernhard Häring, and Josef Fuchs.”

And also according to Smith, the theme that human nature changes over time and between cultures was “drummed into the heads of students repeatedly.”

In a nutshell, the authors of the articles assert that we know much more about human biology, physiology and human sexuality than philosophers and theologians did in the Middle Ages.  Therefore, this new information must be factored in when making moral judgements about human actions.

Smith also contends that this new thinking on human nature is being used by clerics, such as San Diego Cardinal Robert McElroy, to push the idea that the Church needs to revise her teachings on sexuality.

But there are a couple of holes in this ‘changeable human nature’ thinking.  For one, just positing that human nature changes over time does not make it so.  And secondly, knowing more about human biology, physiology, or sexuality does not change our human nature.  This knowledge only gives us more insight into how the human body and mind function.

Who’s Right?

Such differing views on the man’s nature raise a number of questions, the most important of which is, which view is correct?

The majority of Americans appear to think along the lines of humanists.  In 2016 some two-thirds of respondents to a survey “insisted that most people are good by nature.”

But there is a problem with this thinking.  If “most” human beings are good by nature, what explains why some people are bad by nature?  Humans are one race, so we should all share the same basic human nature.  How, then, can most be good while some are bad?

We Are God’s Creation

Our whole purpose in living is to become saints here on earth so we can be with God in heaven when we die. So, we need to feed the good wolf and starve the bad one.

In the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” this is made clear in the very first statement in the Catechism:

“1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength.

Humans were created in the image and likeness of God and made to seek Him and to come to know Him and love Him with all their strength. This then, is also part of our nature. But because human nature is wounded by original sin, we are prone to concupiscence.

Catholic teaching also says we are male and female beings created by God in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:27).  As the Catechism says, “Man and woman were made “for each other” . . . complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”, they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.”

Changing Reality

There is a concerted effort underway, however, to redefine who we are. Whether it’s called transhumanism or something else, it is very real.  We are even being told we can choose which sex we want to be. This effort is insidious. And it is also warped thinking.

If we can redefine what it means to be human, we can redefine morality as well.  If human beings are different today than they were 2,000 years ago, the morals of 2,000 years ago need to be changed to better match 2023 human nature.

What such thinking blatantly ignores, however, is that our nature as well as the moral truths we need to live by are the same now as they were 3,300 years ago, and they will be forever.  They were, after all, given to us by God.

This redefinition effort is being led by people who reject God’s truths.  And, sadly, some Catholic clerics and prelates appear to have been taken in by this effort.

Most Catholics should all be familiar by now with Cardinal Robert McElroy’s statements regarding Church teaching on the morality of same-sex sexual acts.  And in Germany, “Following the conclusion of the German Synodal Way, several bishops have announced plans to put into practice resolutions passed by the process, including liturgical blessings of same-sex unions in their churches.”

Simply Astonishing

But the most telling example of this changing human nature thinking is Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, Archbishop of Luxembourg, President of the EU Bishops’ Commission Comece, and General Relator of the World Synod.  Hollerich, the newest member of Pope Francis’ circle of advisors, said regarding Catholic teaching on homosexuality, “I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.”

That a Catholic Cardinal would think Catholic teaching on morality is based on sociological-scientific principles is quite astonishing.  Catholic teaching on morality is truth given to us by God Himself.  It is not ours to change.

Human nature also cannot change.  Those who think human nature has changed or can change, or that Catholic teaching on morality needs to change are selling snake oil.  They should be run out of town.