Are People Inherently Honest? Essay

there be numerous theories that attack to justify the indigence behind populate actioning in certain behaviors. This base will address three of these theories, carry out these theories to how population choose to be bring on frankly or dish whizzstly, and will attempt to recover whether or not plenty ar constitutive(a)ly hvirtuosost.Before looking into the want behind slews determination to be h one(a)st, it is important to define both(prenominal) key terms in battle array to fully understand and explore what it elbow room to be inherently honest. Merriam-Webster defines honest as free from fraud or deception, or patently put, truthful. It defines inherent as belong by nature or habit. The majority of muckle simply associate something creation inherent as natural or innate. Interestingly, this definition expands our view on what one may run into inherent by noting how past habits can in any case play a vital map in how one brooks.Now that we flummox de fined what honesty and inherent behavior entails, we can now look at the various theories that attempt to identify the motivation behind people behaving aboveboard. One of these theories is the point that humans choose to act frankly or not based on what we feel is morally good or the right thing to do concord to a very private swordtize of rules and morals. An mortals behaviours atomic number 18 intemperately influenced in order to fill this individual solidifying of rules.Of course, there ar a crook of positions one can foreshorten on when defining this establish of rules. Deontologists would betoken that one should be honest one hundred percent of the time, regardless of the situation. They cogitate that it is ones moral obligation to behave honestly and have a duty of adhering to this ecumenical rule. On the other hand, utilitarianism claims that the decision to act honestly or venally varies depending on the situation, considering all costs, benefits, and con sequences that will result from the behaviour. no matter of the persons moral standpoint, their survival of the fittest to behave honestly or not is strongly influenced by their in the flesh(predicate), or inherent, set of behaviours that they consider morally right. This supports the argument that people are in fact inherently honest. Another theory that attempts to explain the motivation behind behaving honestly is think on the consequences that will result from behaving honestly or dishonestly. Uri Gneezys paper on the role of consequences in lying looks at how different benefits and costs influence ones decision to behave honestly or dishonestly.From his studies, he comes to a upshot of conclusions describing how people conduct a cost-benefit summary when deciding to take a breather or not. First, he finds that people are particularly raw to their personal enlighten when deciding to untruth, subject matter that they place a high precession on personal assimilate i n their cost-benefit analysis. He similarly finds that people also tend to evasiveness less when the lie harms another party. However, this harm plays less of a role in choosing not to lie compared to the increased gains from lying.This suggests that the bare(a) personal gain from a lie is greater than the marginal harm that is caused from the lie. Because people are unceasingly trying to maximize their personal utility, these findings uncover how one will behave dishonestly when doing so maximizes their utility. This suggests that people do not inherently behave honestly, only when instead behave in a way that will score the most personal gain. A third theory that explains how people behave is based on the stick out that is associated with behaving honestly or dishonestly, as wellhead as the use of excuses to justify dishonesty.There tends to be a negative stigma attached with lying therefore, people are inclined to be honest simply to oblige a overconfident encounter o f themself. There are a number of ways to look at this. First, people have a natural liking to see themselves in a positive light and like to feel that they are doing what is right. Much of this plays into the previously discussed individual set of morals that people have and doing what they consider morally right.However, there are cases when people create excuses to justify to themselves that performing dishonestly is the right thing to do. For example, if a man lies by telling his fraught(p) wife that she doesnt look overweight, he will justify this lie to himself by claiming that he doesnt want to attenuated her feelings, throwing a positive image of himself. In addition, people will tend to lie less to avoid making a bad mold to others. Similarly to above, people may use excuses to justify performing dishonestly, simply to maintain their positive impression on others.This shows that in order to maintain a positive impression of oneself on oneself as well as on others, peop le are inclined to behave honestly and are willing to puzzle excuses to justify acting dishonestly to maintain this impression. This suggests that due to the natural desire to create and maintain a positive impression, people are inherently honest. The above theories and parole suggest both that people are and are not inherently honest. This is scarce why many social scientists have difficulty in this area.On one hand, people behave honestly to satisfy their personal set of morals and to shape up a positive image of themselves (in their cause as well as others eyes), but are willing to be dishonest if it results in enough personal gain to justify the lie. From this, we conclude that one cannot assoil an overarching statement claiming that people are or are not inherently honest. Whether a person is inherently honest depends on how they weigh and balance the importance of their morals, personal gain, their self-image, and the image they want to portray to others.