The Questionable Nature of “Human Nature”

I find that those who cry about “human nature” are the most ignorant about human nature in general. It’s fallacious in nature, and denies the role societies play in determining what counts as “human nature” and what doesn’t. Certainly war, violence, and aggression are natural to the human condition, but equally so are peace, kindness, and solidarity.

We just so happen to live in a violently competitive culture, so therefore human nature is “violent and competitive,” and examples of human societies to the contrary are deemed “savage” and “primitive.” It’s not a coincidence that the loudest of these sophists are apologists for capital, for the ruling class, who must do everything in their power to enforce their hegemony over society, lest the common folk get too uppity.

If it is in our nature to be self-destructive, then why is that a nature worth embracing and fighting for? The ills of capitalism and authoritarianism are legion, to hand-wave away the problematic nature of capitalism with “it’s just human nature” is an evasion, a sleight-of-hand designed to avoid being confronted the inhumanity of the status quo.

Humans aren’t good or bad by nature, instead we are sociable, no man is an island. If you were to have been born in, say, India, you would likely have a different social outlook than the average Westerner. You’d most likely be Hindu, or Muslim, than be a Christian.

Human nature is not set in stone, and changes with the times. Appeals to human nature are fallacious, and violate Hume’s Guillotine. Why resort to such a spook as human nature in the first place then, if only to shoot down leftist arguments and ideologies?