Nature and the “Bonum Vitae”

Human nature is a measure of inclination. What is our natural disposition or reaction to the array of things life throws our way? Through the study of philosophy, morality was determined as a way to measure the rightness or wrongness of these reactions. Determining that our actions are controllable, Plato saw an objective morality looming over our heads. Alignment with this precedent would result in natural benefits, as this morality was as natural as the rain or dirt underfoot. Acting in accordance was acting virtuously, with the four virtues outlined in The Republic: wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Through the development of reason and pursuance of education, one could achieve these virtues and would simultaneously achieve the bonum vitae. Here lays the crux of classical political philosophy as it is derived from human nature.

Implicitly assuming that humans emerge as a blank slate, Plato was able to reconcile morality and human nature, but unable to reconcile the love of one’s own and the good of the city. Humans are inclined to be naturally self-centered, and the solution for Plato was to eliminate the “one’s own” and negate all concept of property. This is not only preposterous in a theoretical sense, but completely impractical. Machiavelli arises out of a floundering and divided Italy with an undeniable love and respect for classical philosophy. He founds his philosophy on “effectual truth” rather than ideas, and replaces virtue with effectiveness, wisdom with “fortunate astuteness.” Human nature is examined on its face rather than in an ideal form, and all notions of “blank slate” are thrown aside. The definitions change through the Enlightenment through the work of Locke, and appear again in the wake of the Industrial Revolution with Marx. When glancing at these opposing schools of thought, one can trace the evolution of the concept as a reaction to the history surrounding it, and see its importance to the creation of the ideal state and the preservation of the bonum vitae.

Rather than tackle the morality of the human nature, Machiavelli turns to the reality of it playing out. In his Letter to Vettori, Machiavelli splays out his typical day as one in which he does manual labor, actively rips people off, catches animals in traps and cooks them, and then studies classical philosophy for four hours. Presumably this is the life of a common person minus the study of classics, and is not in any sense concerned with virtue or morality or anything of the sort. Most of what he does is in order to survive and be happy, as his happiness tends to be found in two trips to the tavern and old books. This is wholly self-centered in its reality and entirely detached from the moralistic idealism of what he’s actively reading and indulging in. It almost chalks morality up to be a more luxury belief, one mulled over by the rich in order to control the poor.

In The Prince, Machiavelli tells leaders that there is no existing moral structure in any way. All that exists is power, and virtue is just a measure of how much one is able to exert their will onto another. When stating his virtues, Machiavelli lists them in antithetical pairs rather than separating them from vices. He writes, “For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good.” (61). There is no commitment to virtue if human nature is to benefit oneself. Achieving some morality is just going to hurt you. He does draw some guidelines though, saying “One cannot call it virtue to kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; these modes can enable one to acquire empire, but not glory.” (35). This statement is vaguely contradictory to the first, and displays that the semblance of virtue means much more in the eyes of Machiavelli than any actuality. “A wise prince should…only contrive to avoid hatred.” (47). It is this semblance of virtue that benefits one’s effectiveness, or true virtue in Machiavelli’s eyes. One is only effective when subjugating another to their will, which Machiavelli argues is the only natural thing about humans. He writes, “It is a very natural and ordinary thing to desire to acquire.” (14). Human nature is all about will and how successfully one wields it.

Locke builds on the pairs of virtues and vices of Machiavelli by turning them into rights. In the throes of the Enlightenment, Locke claims morality cannot be objectively outlined by any amount of science or human reason, and likewise not part of human nature. What can be defended by reason are natural rights, the obligations of the species towards themselves and others. Locke wrote that humans are in “A state of perfect freedom to order their actions.” (8). This state of freedom though “is not a state of license”, it “has a law of nature to govern it.” (9). These laws of nature are expressed through the human capacity to reason, which is natural to humanity and separates it from the animals. Assuming the equality of all humans, Locke asserts that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, and possessions.” (9). What is not only natural to humanity but also reasonable is one’s life, liberty, and property. All of these are married with an extensive argument backed by reason, whilst morality plays no part in life, liberty, or property.

Moreover, if one’s morality threatens one’s life, liberty, or property, then it is natural for humans to punish the violator. Locke writes, “Every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature.” (10). This is a far cry from the objective morality of Plato’s Republic, wherein it was unjust and unreasonable to harm anyone. Locke disregards the Machiavellian view of power and will with his natural rights as well, but not without a caveat. He writes, “When his preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind.” (9). There is an obligation, one based in the reasonable protection of rights rather than morality, to help others, but only when it is not directly against his own self-interest. For Locke, it is natural to preserve one’s rights and when not threatened by others, it is natural as well to seek to preserve the rights of others.

Marx chucks these notions from a balcony on the third floor. All of Machiavelli’s virtues he argues are ideologies, or methods for the few to suppress the many. The natural concept of property Locke argues for does not exist in actuality, as those who own property are few and those who are propertyless are many. Within the Industrial Revolution and the rise of wage labor amid horrible working conditions, Marx splays out all of political philosophy as a means to suppress. He argues that the lack of social mobility within these societies leads to the negation of equality in the state of nature. Naturally, a few are born with property and most without. This is unequal. What can be controlled is equity.

He directly rejects Locke by saying, “Do not let us go back to a fictitious primordial condition…Such a primordial condition explains nothing.” (1). Locke’s “state of nature” doesn’t exist. The life of these workers is being thrown into the work, they have no social mobility and thus no real liberty to exercise, and are completely without property as everything they work with is owned by someone else and benefits someone else. Even debating the concept of human nature serves to benefit those seeking to wield it for their gain. Similar to Machiavelli, Marx thinks that “The only wheels which the political economy sets in motion are greed, and the war amongst the greedy-competition.” (1). In the absence of a provable morality and practical equality, all that is natural to humanity is the desire to acquire or Marx’s greed.

Within two entirely different contexts, Marx and Machiavelli seem to have similar views of human nature. Both as opposed to Locke look at the practical world around them as the basis for their political thought instead of some “state of nature” or Edenic ideal. All three deny the objective morality of Plato’s Republic, choosing instead to focus on what is reasonable and practical. Only Locke ever describes human nature in relation to others, as Marx and Machiavelli shade it as constantly self-benefitting. It is interesting to see how the classical virtues disappear from political thought through time, as do virtues of any sort. What is rarely addressed in the end of man, what humanity naturally seeks as the solution. Machiavelli says power or domination, Locke says preservation of rights, and Marx says equity. These all allow for the “most good” or most bonum vitae for all. One can trace the evolution of this through historical contexts and see how what is natural is to seek the “good life”, caught in history at different moments with these authors