Abstract
A society’s conceptualization of “human nature” determines both how its people behave and their perceptions about justice. This paper contrasts societies that see humans as naturally competitive and selfish and requiring behavioral training (Skinnerian approaches to social control) with societies that see humans as naturally pro‐social and cooperative, striving to contribute (the premise of the prophets of major religions). Whereas the former rely mainly on rewards and punishments, and utilize retributive forms of justice, the latter rely more on apology, forgiveness, and restitution, with restoration of harmony as the goal of justice. The paper evaluates these two approaches in light of an image of human nature (recently developed by the author) that identifies three evolutionarily selected psychological needs that we all share: for acceptance, autonomy, and meaning. When any are denied, we tend to respond in anti‐social ways. Societies where that happens – particularly punitive authoritarian hierarchies – serve human nature less well, and are inherently unstable. Smaller, more egalitarian communities tend to evolve dialogic processes for resolving social rupture, a psychologically preferable process to coercion and shame.
Notes
Mary E. Clark has degrees in Biochemistry (BA) and Zoology (MA, PhD) from the University of California at Berkeley. Now retired, she lives and writes in the town of Cottage Grove, Oregon.
CitationL.E. Goodman, 1991, makes the important point in his essay on Jewish philosophy, namely that, unlike Christianity, Judaism has not focussed on rewards in an after life but on justice in this life. Both he and Rushkoff argue that the strength of Judaism has been its pragmatic call to create tolerant, mutually‐supporting communities through studying and reinterpreting scripture.
NHC II refers to the Nag Hammadi Codex II, edited by Bentley Layton, and cited in the References. The quotes of Jesus sayings are found in CitationPagels (1995, pp.68,71,71, respectively).
Bruce Perry, a child psychologist specializing in trauma, delineates the two directions psychological trauma can take when it impacts the human brain: toward violence or toward depression. The former is more common in males, the latter in females, but the distinctions are not absolute. Both are the brain’s response to a life‐threatening situation – an evolutionarily embedded response that the individual has no control over, and requires both medication and prolonged, caring counseling to recover from.