Cruelty is the Heart of Human Nature

THE PHILOSOPHICAL CASEXunzi[1]Ancient Chinese philosopher Xunzi's eponymous work might be one of the earliest philosophical efforts offering a discourse on human cruelty. So in defending my position, I must accept his reasoning for Human Cruelty. Cruelty is not the ends, but the means by which humans satisfy their "natural dispositions, their eyes desire the utmost in sights, their ear deire the utmost in sounds, their mouths desire the utmost in flavors, their noses desire the utmost in smells, and their bodies desire the utmost in comfort" (Xunzi, 104). Later, the Chinese sage offers a full discourse entitled Human Nature is Bad. He begins without wasting any time. "People's nature is bad. Their goodness is a matter of deliberate effort" (Xunzi, 248). To obtain the positive extremes of the "five utmosts" defined by Xunzi (that is, the most pleasurable physical stimuli available), one must utilize cruelty. It should be mentioned here that violence is not the only form of Human Cruelty. Since people are very rarely satisfied with their lot, they will always seek that which is better. Here comes the more subtle kinds of Human Cruelty: deception, avarice, infidelity, and manipulation. There are countless examples of employers promising a promotion or a raise to an employee in exchange for extra effort, only to deny the promotion or the raise once the effort has been input. Is this not deception? There are, in the examples of avarice, of course thieves. However, the heads of the most powerful corporations abandon employees once some source cheaper labor presents itself in order to increase their own income by saving on the wages owed to labor. Is this not also avarice? Again countless stories exist regarding a man abandoning his wife for a more beautiful woman ("their eyes desire the utmost sights) and an equal amount of tales telling of a woman abandoning her husband for a wealthier man ("their bodies desire the utmost comfort"). They do practice infidelity, do they not; and is this not cruel to the abandoned spouse? With regards to manipulation, the word itself has become synonymous with Macchiavellianism. Manipulation has been the tool not only of individuals being cruel to others, but of political regimes manipulation whole populations in order to furnish the leaders of the regime with the Five Utmosts.Leviathan[2]In his most famous work, political theorist Thomas Hobbes described the State of Nature, or "War of every man against every man" (Hobbes, 188) and the antidote to this constant state of war, accepting the Social Contract and establishing a Common-Wealth, with a sovereign power: "The office of the Sovereign (be it a Monarch or an Assembly) be it in the end, for which he was trusted with the Sovereign Power, namely the procuration of the safety of the people" (Hobbes, 376). The Sovereign's intended purpose is to prevent the Cruelty that I say is the Heart of Human Nature. Yet, how is he supposed to do that? With Cruelty of Course! The Punishment, as defined by Hobbes, "is an Evil inflicted by public Authority, on him that has done, or omitted that which is Judged by the same Authority to be a Transgression of the Law; to the end that the will of men may thereby be better disposed to obedience" (Hobbes, 353). Are not legal sentences such as fines, imprisonment, and execution merely State sanctioned forms of robbery, kidnapping, and muder? Are these not cruel?To conclude the portion of my argument regarding Leviathan, I must point out that history is filled with examples of Sovereign powers which did nothing to procure the safety of the people. From the cruelty of the ancient empires to the mass murdering regimes of the Twentieth Century, there are many Sovereigns which have thought nothing of the welfare of their own people, and considered only how to obtain the "Five Utmosts" for members and agents in the governing body.Juliette[3]It is impossible to discuss Human Cruelty without discussing the Marquis de Sade, the man from who's name the word "sadism" is derived. Although his most famous work is the infamous novel Justine (of which Napoleon Bonaparte said "Justine is the most abomidable book ever engendered by the most depraved imagination"), the Marquis' magnum opus is the sequel, Juliette. Let us examine the philosophy presented within these pages.Speaking of the most Cruel thing one Human can do to another, the Marquis writes, "Murder is one of [Nature's] laws; whenever she feels the need for murder, she inspires in us a longing to commit it" (Sade, 765). This is not to propose that Nature is some sort of all-powerful deity, for Sade states a little later "Nature cannot bind ma by any law, man is no way dependent upoin Nature, neither is answerable to the other, they cannot harm or help each other" (Sade, 767). Although murder is the most extreme form of cruelty, insert any other act of cruelty, whether it be one I have already provided an example of or one which you can imagine of your own, and the first quote still remains true. We adhere to our Nature; just as the Libertine Juliette murders indiscriminately to achieve her ends, her modern equivalent, an unfaithful woman, cheats indiscriminately to attain the upper limits of the "Five Utmosts" available to her. Or, as to retain balance between the sexes, imagine if you will Juliette's masculine protege, a rising businessman who connives against his colleagues and even his superiors in order to obtain the upper limits of the "Five Utmosts" available to him. Let us now consider manipulation, which Sade discusses a little before this discourse on murder. In the story, the Pope leads Juliette to the overflowing treasure vault of the Holy See. Sade can be quoted thusly: "Sixtus V founded it as a testimonial to the stupidity of Christians" (Sade, 761). Such is the cruelty of manipulation used by not only the heads of powerful and large religions, but also of movements. How many political movements or self-described activists have taken in large donations only to offer little to no results? And how many donors are still swearing that the Cruel thief is in the right? The chronological order of my philosophical case is purely coincidental to the true reasons for this organization. Here I shall offer a quote of Sade's that will link us to the historical case. "Still infatuated with his depopulation measures, his aim in the present plot was to starve two-thirds of France to dath, by engrossing foodstuffs, grans cheifly, on a colossal scale" (Sade, 549). THE HISTORICAL CASEIn light of the last quote left in the Philosophical Case, we must examine the mass starvations in recent history. Let us first not forget that the Marquis de Sade was a member of the French nobility (albeit imprisoned) at the time of the French Revolution. That Revolution was indeed ignited by a famine in France, and it is quite possible, given that France was at the time experiencing overpopulation problems, so the claim the Marquis makes might not be entirely false: there might have indeed been a plot by the higher echelons of French society to starve a large percentage of the population in order to make them more manageable. Although, assuming this conjecture to be true, this backfired and led to the overthrow of the Ancien Regime, there have been countless other artificial famines induced by totalitarian regimes. From Stalin's Holodomor to the mass starvation in Maoist China, Sovereigns can be as cruel as to impose famine as a population control measure.I the historical case I will keep away from ancient history, such as the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks and Romans, and instead concentrate upon much more recent events. So let us examine individual cruelty today.I could just list serial killers and rapists and kidnappers, but as that these individuals constitute only a miniscule percentage of the population, I shall concentrate on those who operate within the bounds of the Social Contract. So, in the name of controversy, let us consider those women that demand public funding for abortions[4]. Currently, in the US, there is the Hyde Amendment[5] which restricts public funding for abortions, allowing only for certain circumstances. Repeal of this Act would drect money away from other Welfare sources, however proponents of repeal do not care because they wish to obtain more physical pleasure at the expense of others, seeking for themselves the "Five Utmosts" without regards for the finances or moral sentiments of others. How is this not Cruelty?In my discussion on Juliette, I left an unanswered question. Although we can all point at the Vatican and see greed and avarice in action, we can do the same with multiple Secular orgnizations. The Veterans' Charity Wounded Warriors was hit by a scandal last year when it was revealed that top executives of the Charity were spending lavishly upon themselves[6]. In another example, Feminist game critic Anita Sarkeesian received over $150,000 to review sexism in video games.[7] Promising 12 videos covering 12 topics, she only released 3 videos covering 3 topics[8]. However, the amount spent on salaries and wages increased dramatically. In both of these cases, how is either different from the Catholic Church? They both requested donations, received them, and then mishandled the funds. And although Feminist Frequency created no real victims, Wounded Warrior did abandon many of the veterans they were claiming to help[9].Now I must discuss political cruelty. I will not discuss the artificial genocides I discussed above or the Holocaust, as that those topics are already well documented. Instead, let us discuss the Political Cruelty exhibited in Revolutions. From Che Guevara's mass murdering of dissidents following the successful revolution in Cuba to the thousands killed in the Terror of 1792, we see cruelty is a tool of sovereigns. America is also not immune. The rebellions following the American Revolution were put down violently as well.