Are People Inherently Honest? Essay

at that place be numerous theories that attempt to excuse the pauperism tush community acting in certain shipway. This subject will address three of these theories, apply these theories to how state take up to suffer h iodinestly or dis frankly, and will attempt to determine whether or not plenty atomic number 18 inherently h matchlessst.Before olfactory sensationing into the motivation behind masss termination to be h championst, it is important to define nearly key terms in order to fully understand and look for what it means to be inherently honest. Merriam-Webster defines honest as free from dissembler or deception, or simply put, truthful. It defines inherent as belonging by nature or habit. The majority of throng simply associate something universe inherent as natural or innate. Interestingly, this definition expands our descry on what one may consider inherent by noting how sometime(prenominal) habits can also play a vital role in how one conducts.Now that we have defined what honesty and inherent deportment entails, we can now look at the various theories that attempt to send the motivation behind people behaving honestly. One of these theories is the fact that humans choose to act honestly or not based on what we thumb is mor altogethery good or the right thing to do gibe to a very personalised adjust of rules and morals. An individuals behaviours are heavily influenced in order to satisfy this individual set of rules.Of course, there are a number of positions one can take on when defining this set of rules. Deontologists would argue that one should be honest one hundred percent of the time, regardless of the situation. They believe that it is ones moral obligation to act honestly and have a duty of adhering to this universal rule. On the otherwise hand, utilitarianism claims that the decision to act honestly or deceitfully varies depending on the situation, considering all costs, benefits, and consequences that will result from the behaviour.Regardless of the persons moral standpoint, their extract to behave honestly or not is strongly influenced by their personal, 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 focused on the consequences that will result from behaving honestly or shoddyly. Uri Gneezys paper on the role of consequences in double-dealing looks at how different benefits and costs influence ones decision to behave honestly or dishonestly.From his studies, he comes to a number of conclusions describing how people conduct a cost-benefit analysis when decision making to lie or not. First, he finds that people are particularly sensitive to their personal gain when deciding to lie, meaning that they place a high priority on personal gain in their cost-benefit analysis. He also finds that people also list to lie l ess 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 alludes that the marginal personal gain from a lie is greater than the marginal harm that is caused from the lie. Because people are constantly trying to maximize their personal utility, these findings display how one will behave dishonestly when doing so maximizes their utility. This suggests that people do not inherently behave honestly, but rather behave in a way that will create the most personal gain. A trinity theory that explains how people behave is based on the image that is associated with behaving honestly or dishonestly, as well as the use of excuses to disengage dishonesty.There tends to be a negative stigma attached with lying therefore, people are inclined to be honest simply to maintain a positive image of themself. There are a number of ways to look at this. First, people have a natural relish to see themselves in a positive light and like to expression 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 acting dishonestly is the right thing to do. For example, if a man lies by telling his pregnant wife that she doesnt look over presst, he will justify this lie to himself by claiming that he doesnt want to hurt her feelings, maintaining a positive image of himself. In addition, people will tend to lie less to avoid making a bad impression to others. Similarly to above, people may use excuses to justify acting 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, people are inclined to behave honestly and are willing to make excuses to justify acting dishonestly to maintain this impr ession. This suggests that due to the natural desire to create and maintain a positive impression, people are inherently honest. The above theories and discussion suggest both that people are and are not inherently honest. This is barely why many social scientists have difficulty in this area.On one hand, people behave honestly to satisfy their personal set of morals and to promote a positive image of themselves (in their own 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 make 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.