We cannot deny the importance of Human nature. Every entity we observe, be it an orange falling on earth or an atom of Hydrogen or a molecule of water, we observe it by virtue of its nature. Human Nature has nothing mystical or abstract about itself. It is purely rationalism and is based on reason rather than mysticism of Dharmic or Abrahamic religions.
Human are purely natural phenomenon and there is no creationism regarding human. Human evolved to our present state through various natural mechanisms like evolution, adaptation etc.
The major debate regarding human nature is about determinism and indeterminism. We all say Human is free. Freewill do exists. Yet if all is deterministic then how can free will exist? Freewill is well supported by quantum entities too. The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Copenhagen Interpretation and Bell’s theory suggests the indeterminism of some of the actions.
Despite of all arguments and counter-arguments on Libertarianism and Determinism supporters, the basic thing which remains is the fact that we cannot be rational without free-will. We surely have a free-will to chose, although as Robert Kane suggested that the necessary condition of acting freely is the presence of alternative possibilities, the domain of free-will can be limited to the presence of alternative possibilities.
Determinism cannot be true because if all is determined, then the presence of choices or alternative possibilities is useless, as the choice which would be made is already determined, which cannot be the case. The Freewill may sound to be compatible with determinism, but the fact that randomness occurs at impasse of determinism and deterministic factors supports it.
Like every other entity of this world, human also have its nature which is open to rational observation and reflection, since all things have natures and we inspects them, then surely man’s nature is open to inspection too. Any rejection of the concept of the nature of man is therefore arbitrary and a priori.
Mystics and spiritualists may start talking of supernatural, paranormal and abstract definitions of free-will etc, yet it has no rational basis, because there is actually, no need to consider who decides the human nature. Obviously the natural phenomenons which lead us to current state decide it.
Many times I have faced such situations where people state that liberalism or free-will cannot be accepted just because it has been contradicted by others. Others say that Natural-Theorists differ amongst themselves. The basic thing is human is not infallible. But human in state of nature is not at all burdened by any original sin or pre-life karmic results, and the human as individual is fully free to choose between right and wrong. There may remain some hereditary effects, as Bertrand Russell suggested “moral evil or sin is derived from the instincts that have been transmitted to us from our ancestry of beasts of prey. This ancestry originated when certain animals became omnivorous and employed predation (killing and thievery) in order periodically to ingurgitate the flesh as well as the fruit and produce of other once-living things to support metabolism in competition with other animals for scarce food-animal and food-plant sources in the predatory environment in which we evolved. Thus, the simple fact that we humans must eat other life or else starve, die and rot is the probable primordial origin of contemporary and historical moral evil; i.e., the bad things we do to each other by lying, cheating, slandering, thieving and slaughtering”
But the fact of free-will remains same. It is our free-will to choose amongst the various alternative possibilities and to accept the ultimate responsibility of the good or bad things we do. It is a fact that man’s reason doesn’t mean that error is impossible. No man is omniscient or flawless and that is a law of man’s nature. Yet, a man is reasonable and responsible. We learn from our faults, we evolve, we rationalize and deduce and evolves for better, another law. Darwin suggested that humans and other animal species have no truly fixed nature and that suggests that the dilemma of Russell’s concept of instincts of doing moral sin is actually changeable, and a man is free to chose between the wrong instinct and right reasonable choice. It is evolving and that is a law. We keep improving. Yet, Moral Objectivism is also a law of human nature. The moral nature of human suggests that moral statements are of the types of statement which are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, etc). As for example, to state that murder is wrong, is an approximate truth and to say that stealing is good is largely false.
Normal human behavior remains invariant over long periods of time and it remains similar in almost all cultures and the change which occurs, do occurs on free-will and alternative possibilities and is lead by the natural law which elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. And to follow the human nature choosing the available options reasonably, provides a positivistic path towards developing approximation of perfection.
Express yourself, don’t repress yourself
And I’m not sorry [I'm not sorry]
It’s human nature [it's human nature]
And I’m not sorry [I'm not sorry]
Im not your bitch don’t hang your shit on me[ Its human nature] Madonna – Human Nature