Exam Question
“Do you believe human by nature, are selfish and destructive animals? Or are they tactical progressive beings? On the whole, can any useful claims be made out about human nature? What is your evidence? This is an important question in ethics. If humans by nature are not very concerned with the welfare of others this calls into question the very possibility of morality. Or maybe we are able to be regularly empathetic and emotional? If this is true out moral expectations are warranted: People can and should act decently.SO what do you think about human beings? Are we a bunch of jerks who are kept in line by laws and force? Or is this too negative view of humanity? Defend your answer as best you can.”
\
Intro Paragraph
For centuries the ethics and human nature of morality has been debated by philosophers, ever going with no definitive answer. What is it that makes one act out to another violently or with compassion? What is it that makes one strive to be the best, or have the most and why is it that society allows many to be bottom dwellers scraping for the leftovers? What is it that makes one want to understand what they don’t know? Can it merely be man’s necessity? Human behavior is a result of self-interest and interactions with society and their environment, an absence of self-interest induces essentially “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, or I’ll scratch your eyes out.” Anthropomorphizing “Survival of the fittest.” Ergo it is evident human behavior can be attributed from Social Darwinism.
\
Tell me what you think I’m not very skilled at grammar essays, nor organization of things, thoughts and time. THX
Social Darwinism is a dog that won’t hunt.
are you trying to imply it is useless?
OK, so if the first sentence of your intro is not an answer to the question, “can any useful claims be made out about human nature?” then you have a problem.
Well, there’s the first problem. While it might be possible that you are offering some kind of evidence here, it is not clear what you are offering evidence for and it certainly isn’t clear what your position is. It is definitely clear that you will lose 5-20% because you began an essay with, “For centuries…” Plus a somewhat vague insult to philosophers and philosophy isn’t winning you any points, either.
Why are you asking the questions? You are supposed to be presenting your answer and how you will support this answer. You should strive to do without any question marks in your essays.
I really don’t know what this sentence means. I understand the string before the comma, but I have no idea what that part has to do with the second part. Nor do I understand what that second part is supposed to mean.
This is not a sentence.
“attributed from”?
This essay has no thesis statement.
i got owned time to try again.
Always amazes me when people start using terms like social Darwinism given how scathing Darwin himself was of attributing evolution to human systems without making some serious acknowledgments to the differences between our social structure and its complexity and language as compared to the relatively unsophisticated structure of an ant colony.
I’d say it isn’t useless it just doesn’t and has never really acknowledged how inapt the term survival of the fittest is to our society, and acknowledged only that it was meant to be another way of saying natural selection that had been misused to refer to human selection pressures. Darwin went to great pains to say that evolution wasn’t meant to take account of humans, even writing several books about specifically human societies after the fact to try and disabuse people of reading too much into anthropological concerns without acknowledging serious differences in structure. No one listened though obviously. 
If the term is used it should be called something like social Spencerianism or x as it has nothing at all to do with anything Darwin said and is attributed only to those who came after and sought to force Darwins square theory into a round hole.
If you actually read Darwins rather technical works it never really allows its far reaching theories to be summed up in trite sound bites.
If you were to sum it up in sound bites, something more like:
Natural selection is not survival of the fittest rather it is the survival of those animals most able to adapt to their environment or its selection pressures.
Although entirely inadequate it is closer to what he actually said rather than the engineered implications those who came after tried to force into it.
I don’t actually agree with the line I was towing, but you might find some inspiration for your essay in this thread.
Some other threads worth considering on the issue of ethics/morality:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=172599&p=2160181
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=172495&p=2157665
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=171214&p=2140199
Since your thinking has a bit of a Hobbsian bent, this thread may also be worth a gander:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=170044&p=2107908
Or, you know, just look up Hobbes and Locke on Wikipedia.
And here are some threads that touch on Social Darwinism:
thx Xunzian any other notes? i read those threads i think i have a better understanding now.
As far as essay writing goes, you want to get straight in there with some substance. The list of questions at the beginning is pointless. It’s the lecturers job to ask you questions, its your job to answer them.
Try and stick to concrete stuff. Also, “human behavior can be attributed from Social Darwinism” - I don’t know much about social darwinism, but I think its actually an ethical standpoint rather than an explanation of human behaviour. The exam question mentions ethics, but I think the question is asking you to first find a suitable explanation of human behaviour, and then second (possibly) discuss the possible ethical implications of the theory. I say, start with hobbes or locke.
If I were you I’d plan the whole essay throroughly before you write any part. There’s no point writing a thesis statement until you know exaclty what you’re going to be talking about. It will also help your intro become less ‘wishy washy’.