Thesis: Human nature is self-interested. Antithesis: Human nature is altruistic.
Synthesis: There is no real opposition between selfishness and altruism, since human beings often perceive their own self-interest in helping others in their family and their society.
And, of course, this synthesis can produce yet another trio of arguments:
Thesis: People help others because they perceive it to be in their own best interest.
Antithesis: People often act altruistically when there is no hope of self-interest, as when soldiers sacrifice their lives to save others.
Synthesis: Even the utmost altruistic acts can be based on a form of self- interest, as when people who sacrifice their lives to help others derive pleasure from the knowledge that they are doing so.
At this point, the exercise of resolving antitheses has led us to formulate an idea that is solidly based on the ideas of Mencius and Hsun Tzu without duplicating either of their opinions exactly. Any of the three "synthesis" propositions in this exercise could be refined to make an original and creative thesis. Taken together, they form the basis for the following sample paper, which also draws on ideas from Ruth Benedict and Thomas Hobbes to achieve a synthesis that does not completely accept or reject any of its source materials.
Human Nature, Morality, and Altruism: Are People Good, or What?
As Confucianism became more and more influential in ancient China, even the major Confucians could not agree on one key issue: is human nature essentially good or essentially evil? Mencius, the most influential Confucian besides Confucius himself, weighed in strongly on the side of inherent human virtue. His fellow Confucian, Hsun Tzu, believed the opposite—he felt that people are inherently evil. Though this same debate has been replicated in most of the great religions and philosophies of the world, the terms that it incorporates are problematic. Human nature can be neither inherently good nor inherently evil, since "good" and "evil" are constructed differently by different cultures.
In "The Individual and the Pattern of Culture," Ruth Benedict explains how different behaviors can be seen in different moral lights by different cultures. Eating a relative's dead body would be seen as a horribly evil act by someone
in New York. Not eating a relative's dead body, on the other hand, would be seen as an unforgivable moral lapse in some parts of New Guinea. With these variations in what constitutes good and evil, it is impossible to ascribe either character trait to humanity in the abstract. The most that can be said is that human beings are inherently disposed or inherently not disposed to act according to the dictates of their home cultures.
One could argue with much more conviction, however, that human beings are inherently self-interested. In certain states, such as the Hobbesian "state of nature," this self-interest leads to a state of "war of all against all." However, Hobbes also argues that human beings, recognizing their self-interest, come together and form societies and act—often altruistically—to preserve those societies. When this is the case, self-interest is at the heart of behavior that both Mencius and Hsun Tzu would undoubtedly have seen as "good." There is, therefore, no real opposition between selfishness and altruism, since human beings often perceive their own self-interest in helping others in their family and their society.
Yet there are some occasions—especially in times of war, plague, famine, or great oppression—in which people act altruistically when there is no possibility of this act working in their own favor. A young marine throwing himself on a hand grenade to save his companions, a mother giving the last bit of food to her family and starving to death, a political dissident taking on a totalitarian regime knowing that it will mean death—actions of these sorts can be documented in cultures throughout the world, and yet they do not seem to be accounted for by a theory of human nature as inherently selfish.
However, even the utmost altruistic acts can be based on a form of self- interest, as when people who sacrifice their lives to help others derive pleasure from the knowledge that they are doing so. Nothing is wrong with such a feeling. It would be foolish to suggest that people who derived pleasure in helping others were acting "selfishly" in the normal, pejorative sense of the word. It is reasonable, however, to assume that they would not act in this way unless they derived satisfaction from doing so—and satisfaction, even when earned through acts of great self-sacrifice, is "selfish" in the broadest sense of the word.
To return to the debate between Mencius and Hsun Tzu, it is fair to say that the two great Chinese thinkers used the terms "good" and "evil" when they really meant "selfish" and "unselfish." A close examination of human societies, however, supports the argument that no ironclad distinction exists between selfish and unselfish action, since both are, in some way or another, in the perceived self-interest of the people who act. The most that can be said about the "inherent" properties of human nature is that human nature is inherently self-interested—and that this is not necessarily a bad thing.
INCORPORATING IDEAS
S
«Jince ideas build on other ideas, writing about ideas often requires you to refer to another writer's work. And it will often be the case that you will consult not one source but many, and need to document them appropriately.
Almost anybody with a computer or mobile device can access billions of pages of information almost instantly. Materials that once took weeks or months to gather— documents, census records, books, journals, historical records, and rare books—can now be accessed in seconds. We live in an age of information.
As finding sources of information becomes easier, understanding how to evaluate those sources and incorporate them into arguments becomes more and more important. It can be daunting to sift through the many sources at our fingertips— none of us has the time to read a hundred million webpages to find what we are looking for, and, more often than not, people faced with an abundance of information simply end up listening to and believing whoever yells the loudest.
This chapter offers guidance on citing others' ideas, from finding and evaluating sources to incorporating and documenting them. We can thereby avoid, as the great biologist Edward O. Wilson put it, "drowning in information while starving for wisdom." Such interconnection reflects thinking's collaborative nature, which has always been at the heart of ideas that matter.
FINDING SOURCES
The web is a tremendous resource for excellent research material, but it is not the only source, nor does it contain valuable material on every topic. Academic libraries still spend millions of dollars on print-based materials, such as books and journals that contain valuable information not available anywhere else. At the same time, some information is available only online, and the sheer number of documents available makes the internet an essential resource. A good research strategy for most topics will include information in books, journals, electronic databases, archives, and websites.
Library-Based Sources
Books
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that any source worth finding can be found online, but this isn't true. For some topics—including many of those discussed in Reading the World—printed books remain an important source of reliable information. Most universities spend considerable resources maintaining a print collection, and many important scholarly works are not available online. College students should be very familiar with their schools' libraries and library catalogs.
The library catalog is your main resource for finding books and can be accessed through your library's website. When using the catalog you can search by author, title, subject, or keyword. Many of the books in the catalog may be available in print or online or may be downloadable to your computer or mobile device.