Are humans basically good? | Tempest #2
In “The Tempest,” William Shakespeare raises the thought-provoking question: Are humans basically good? This motif is provoked by several mischievous characters in this play such as Ariel, Caliban, and Alonso. In taking a look at these characters it seems the answer would be “no,” but I would like to argue the contrary: humans are innately good, whatever that may mean. A human, as with any other terrestrial animal, is designed to do whatever they can in order to survive and procreate to effectively preserve the human race. This means that humans act with the intention of benefiting themselves no matter the situation. Therefore, humans always have good intentions whether they are selfish or not. In addition, humans are inherently compassionate. This is why we strive for long-lasting relationships and are ultimately afraid of loneliness. Therefore, in my opinion, it seems that humans only have good intentions and would never, except in rare cases, willingly inflict harm on another unless there was a reason for it to be beneficial to their survival.
I appreciate your new take on the idea that humans are innately good. I agree with your point that humans act with the intention of benefitting themselves and therefore, others should know that their actions may appear "bad," but their intentions are good. However, shouldn't this mean that if others have to remeber to find the "good" in someone's actions, rather than it being blatenly presented, that those humans are not "basically good?" Another thought I had was that if humans are willing to inflict harm in order to benefit their survival, does this mean our morals are "basically good?" In any case, I still completely side with your explanation and how Shakespeare raises this thought-provoking question in The Tempest with several characters. Anotehr similar question that could arise with this motif is do you think Caliban is justified for wanting to kill Prospero and are his intentions still good?
ReplyDelete