A New Philosophical Approach to Human Nature: How It Really Works and What Influences It

In his book “Emotional Amoral Egoism: A Neurophilosophical Theory of Human Nature and Its Universal Security Implications,” author Nayef RE Al-Rodhan eloquently lays out his new philosophical approach to how human nature works. The core of his approach sees human nature as a predisposed tabula rasa, a clear difference from earlier approaches, such as Rousseau, who imagined human beings to be naturally good, or Hobbes, who saw human actions as driven solely by instinct.

In contrast to these earlier philosophies, Al-Rodhan presents a more differentiated view of human nature. His point of view is a mix between human instinct and environmental factors that shape the way we decide what actions to take. Because of this mixed view, the background section that he explores and lays out the foundations of his philosophy is more challenging, combining traditional philosophical statements with basic scientific discourse.

So what is the predisposed tabula rasa that Al-Rodhan is talking about? Using this term, it is quite simple to explain his view of how genetic predisposition and environment will interact to form our nature and guide our actions. Tabula rasa used to mean a clean slate, a mind, or being open to outside influences for guidance. Al-Rodhan rejects this view of human nature, arguing that the environment, while still having a place in our decision tree, is limited in its influence by genetics. We are born with a genetic makeup that we cannot alter, only modify. Genetic factors will influence how we act to some extent, shaping our instincts and limiting environmental influences.

To explain his philosophy, Al-Rodhan explores in some depth both the traditional philosophical history, beautifully presented in an in-depth chapter to bring the reader up to speed, and basic genetics. The reader will receive all the information necessary to understand philosophy, but the book will challenge the reader to understand philosophy, but also science. As such, it is a departure from traditional philosophy books.

To address the question of whether we are good by nature or learn to be good through analysis, the author argues that humans can be good depending on the situation. He argues that we are driven by self-interest, constrained by genetic makeup, and that decisions tend to be based primarily on emotions rather than rational thought.

If this is how the individual acts and makes decisions, what are the implications for our coexistence and can lessons for international conflict avoidance be derived from this analysis? The author devotes the final part of his book to this question and presents a theory that underlines the importance of guaranteeing basic human rights to all as a means of limiting the traditional causes of conflict. In his theory, basic human rights would include access to food and shelter for all, certainly a challenge in some regions of the world. I think this part of the book may represent the most innovative part of the book. The theory that a better understanding of human nature can lead to a reduction in conflict implies that traditional means of seeking peace and coexistence are doomed to failure, since they do not address the root causes of conflict. Certainly this book will provide plenty of room for discussion. To fully appreciate this book, especially the author’s view of conflict and how to achieve peaceful coexistence, the reader should carefully read the opening chapters of the book to fully understand the author’s theory of human nature.