Yet, despite all the attention devoted by academic observers, activists, and policymakers, progress in remedying these still endemic social problems has been limited, uneven, and all too reversible. Why have the efforts of an army of social scientists working over several generations not yielded more tangible progress in combating our most pressing social problems? In this essay, I argue that the lack of a coherent conception of human nature has contributed to the frustrating results of our attempts to advance human society through scientific inquiry. I suggest that greater understanding of the human spirit can contribute to the overarching project of improving the human condition that unites all of the social sciences.

Speaking broadly and simplifying vastly (as limited space necessitates), two meta-paradigms concerning human nature have guided much social science research in the past several decades. On the one hand, there is a rationalist paradigm that theorizes human beings as egoists rationally pursuing their self-interest. This understanding of human nature provides the foundation for the discipline of economics and has become increasingly dominant in political science. In emphasizing that actions follow a “logic of consequences” in which decisions are based on how expected outcomes will affect an individual’s utility, the rationalist paradigm does not consider morality an inherent dimension of human action. In this framework, people are portrayed as largely amoral, only taking normatively proper actions if doing so benefits them personally or if they happen to derive unusually high utility from virtuous behavior due to idiosyncrasies in character.

In political science, the assumptions underlying the rationalist paradigm lead to a rather pessimistic outlook on the likelihood of arriving at morally agreeable outcomes. For instance, there is no reason to believe that a dictator will stop employing violence against his own citizens just because the international community urges that it is the right thing to do; rather, such behavior will continue until the leader’s incentive structure changes, making political repression too costly to continue. However, characterizing people as rational actors need not entail such a bleak outlook. In economics, for example, there seems to be an almost axiomatic faith in Adam Smith’s notion that the rational pursuit of self-interest benefits the entire collectivity.

In contrast to the rationalist approach, there is a normative paradigm that conceives of human beings as primarily concerned with aligning their actions to standards of appropriateness for particular roles and identities in different social situations. While the rationalist paradigm thrives in economics and political science, the normative paradigm is most prevalent in sociology. From this perspective, people are less concerned with doing whatever it takes to achieve their aims than with determining which actions are prescribed for given circumstances and behaving accordingly. In this way, actors do what is perceived as right for its own sake, operating according to a “logic of appropriateness” rather than a “logic of consequences.” In a sharp contrast to the amoral egoists that populate rationalist models of the world, human actors in the normative paradigm are conceived of as fundamentally moral beings, deeply influenced by what their communities consider right and proper.

While acknowledging the potential for a gap between standards of appropriate behavior and the capacity to adhere to those standards in practice, the normative paradigm tends towards an optimistic estimate of the possibility of achieving morally desirable outcomes. Problematic behavior can be corrected through moral suasion based on clearly articulated normative standards, without necessarily appealing to the self-interest of deviant actors, as in the rationalist paradigm. For instance, pro-democracy international institutions might be able to socialize officials from authoritarian countries into valuing democracy for its own sake, transcending their rational inclination to perpetuate oppressive arrangements.

How can we reconcile these profoundly disparate visions of humanity in analyzing and attempting to remedy social problems? Many acknowledge that social action can follow both the rationalist “logic of consequences” and the normative “logic of appropriateness,” but social theorists have yet to construct a coherent framework that can explain when action might follow one or the other logic. Far too much energy has been expended in unproductive debates in which analysts draw on limited empirical findings to assert the superiority of their favored approach.

To be sure, both paradigms are intuitively plausible, and one can easily find cases that fit the predictions of each. But both approaches are incomplete, and unable on their own to account for the full range of human behavior. The rationalist paradigm offers no explanation for why discourses about norms and morality comprise such an essential part of everyday human experience, while the normative approach fails to account for the pervasiveness of anti-social and immoral behavior. But if we are neither the self-seeking sociopaths envisioned by the rationalist paradigm nor the perfectly socialized automatons imagined by the normative paradigm, then who are we?

I suggest that social scientific analysis and policymaking might be well served by drawing on conceptions of human nature that derive more from the inherited wisdom of religious traditions and less from the abstract deductions of contemporary theoretical paradigms. The perspective I advocate takes up a broad theme of the Abrahamic faiths – the universal corruptibility of the human spirit, beginning with the transgressions of the very first human beings in the story of the Garden of Eden. In other words, I argue that it is analytically useful for social science research to conceptualize human beings as sinners.

With this characterization, I suggest that people are highly aware of and concerned with the normative prescriptions of the various social groupings to which they belong, and typically act to uphold and reinforce these standards of behavior. However, as the fallible creatures that we are, we fall prey to a range of spiritual lapses that lead us to use to violate even our most sacred moral codes. Common-sense reflection on the historical record of human behavior can shed light on how our penchant for sinfulness expresses itself. We have shown that we disregard the lives of others in the pursuit of profit and power. We dehumanize and oppress those whom we perceive as different from ourselves. We grow comfortable in positions of wealth and influence, protecting our own standing against changes that would benefit the rest of society. We think only of our own short-term gain rather than our long-term responsibilities to those who will come after us. We are indifferent to the suffering of strangers. We break promises, tell lies, and act hypocritically. We take for granted and hurt the ones we love.

Of course, our propensity for sinful behavior does not mean that we are only capable of depravity. Indeed, most of the time we follow the moral standards of our communities in an unreflective, straightforward fashion. And we are certainly capable of deep compassion and heroic self-sacrifice. But our spiritual imperfection means that we all have an inherent potential to stray from a righteous path, especially during extreme conditions like warfare, political instability, poverty, and economic depression. This potential is universal and timeless, and exists within men and women, rich and poor, traditional and modern, educated and illiterate, believer and skeptic alike. The exact nature of our vices, and the extent to which they impact other people, might vary according to our social positions (a prince’s failings can cause greater harm than a pauper’s), but corruptibility is something we all share.

Imagining human beings as sinners makes sense of the paradoxical views of humanity offered by the rationalist and normative paradigms while overcoming their limitations. This perspective incorporates the normative paradigm’s insight that people care about upholding the standards of appropriateness of their communities, but sheds the naïve expectation that they will almost automatically abide by these standards. This perspective also accepts the rationalist paradigm’s premise that people often engage in aberrant, self-serving action. However, while the rationalist paradigm suggests that people pursue their own satisfaction without considering the normative implications of their behavior, the view of humans as sinners recognizes that people generally aspire towards decency, even if they are sometimes susceptible to moral breakdown. Eschewing firm a priori assumptions about people’s inclination towards normatively appropriate behavior, the spiritual paradigm I propose starts from acknowledging our demonstrated capacity for both upstanding and immoral behavior. A social science research program built upon such a vision of humanity would aim to investigate the social conditions under which people engage in different types of behavior – virtuous and vicious – and draw upon this knowledge to design policies that will better confront the most lasting and pernicious social problems.

An inadequate understanding of humankind’s spiritual character can lead to two types of problems that have plagued modern attempts to shape our societies for the better. First, we often craft policies that rest on naïve assumptions about human nature, and which could only work in practice if we were saints rather than sinners. For instance, a laissez faire approach to economic regulation stems from the notion that allowing people to freely pursue their economic self-interest leads the economy to thrive. But this position underestimates the extent to which economic actors, left unchecked, are prone to greedy or shortsighted behavior that can harm society as a whole. The current financial crisis resulted from the creation of high-risk financial instruments that led consumers to take on mortgages they could not afford and companies to over-invest in dubious mortgage-backed securities. These policies enriched the finance industry and expanded the ranks of homeowners in the short-term, but the bursting of the housing bubble led to an epidemic of foreclosures, a stock market crash, a drying up of credit, and a global economic recession.

The policy of abstinence-only sex education is another case in which the likelihood of virtue is overestimated. This policy relies on the sexual restraint of young people to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among teenagers. Such programs have been found to be ineffective because they fail to appreciate the difficulty of resisting the temptation to engage in risky sexual behavior for even the most steadfast advocates of abstinence. These examples suggest that policies too dependent on the proper behavior of those involved will tend not to be very successful.

A second problem deriving from our inadequate understanding of human nature is our tendency to divide the world into rigid categories of those who are righteous and those who are wicked, often succumbing to the hubristic assumption that God is on our side. Rather than recognizing that we are all equal in our potential for moral failure, we forget our own sinfulness, with the ironic result that those most ostensibly committed to social progress along Enlightenment principles can be guilty of the most brutal inhumanity.

Idealistic political movements have frequently illustrated such a dynamic. The French Revolution, for instance, produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, proclaiming liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression to be natural rights. Just a few years later, Robespierre’s Committee for Public Safety launched a program of arbitrary executions to protect the revolutionary government from the perceived threat of internal enemies, an absurd blasphemy of the Revolution’s foundational principles. Similarly, the vanguard of the Bolshevik Revolution viewed itself as leading the world towards a communist future that would eradicate inequality and establish the conditions for universal human flourishing. Yet this project devolved into a paranoid police state that imprisoned and executed millions of kulaks, Cossacks, and other class enemies for the sake of the unquestionably righteous Revolution.

As casual observers of history, we tend to attribute such atrocities to the uncommonly evil character of the key figures involved: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao. But such horrors as chattel slavery, colonialism, the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and the Darfur crisis are not simply the work of a single monstrous leader or a few bad apples. They require many hands, and arise from an all-too-human capacity to inflict harm on others, to be overcome with hatred, to turn a blind eye to suffering and injustice – in short, to be inhumane. The urge to dissociate ourselves from such evils is powerful, as we like to think of ourselves as good people, incapable of such savagery. But the history of human suffering is the story of allegedly good people doing terrible things to each other. Thus, we must accept any sin committed by another person as potentially one of our own.

Treading a righteous path – as individuals, as corporations, as nations – is difficult, but certainly not impossible. Bringing our aspirations for values like equality, liberty, and peace closer to fruition requires not just technical knowledge, but also attention to how the spiritual character of human beings shapes the implementation and effectiveness of policy initiatives. When we acknowledge the darker aspects of our nature, the design of policies becomes a matter of identifying and protecting against the sources of temptation we may face.

The structure of American political institutions might serve to illustrate a well-crafted policy in this regard. Wary of the concentration of power in the hands of any one entity, the drafters of American institutions dispersed authority among three distinct branches of government. While members of each branch have worked to enhance their own power, the separation of powers ensures an ongoing wrangling between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the result being that no one branch can accumulate absolute authority. Instead of trusting political actors to refrain from power seeking, the founders anticipated the temptation to extend one’s reach and devised mechanisms to check that tendency. In this way, democratic rule has survived for over two centuries.

The modern social sciences offer an impressive array of techniques for acquiring systematic knowledge about human societies. But scientific knowledge will not lead the world on a linear march of progress if not coupled with an honest and accurate reckoning of human nature. Turning with humility to the insights into the human spirit offered by religious traditions may be the best way to appreciate and temper the shortcomings we have shared from the beginning.

P. Geoffrey Bakken is PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin.

The movie makers probably did not intend to make killing look attractive. But was it the final effect anyways? Do movies depicting indecent acts fail to show the consequences sufficiently? What can society do about this trend? These and similar questions have been asked and debated for decades. Below, we analyze a time in Hollywood when the concentrated efforts of concerned individuals and organizations had a significant positive impact on forcing the movie industry to move toward self-regulation.

The Beginning of the Movie Industry

Movies rose as a new form of entertainment at the turn of twentieth century. By the 1920s, 40 million Americans were watching them each week. After winning the right to vote in 1920, flapper girls were exercising their new-found freedom, Harlem nightclubs flourished with whites with an interest in African American culture, and the number of gangs selling liquor during Prohibition increased. Movie producers displayed these value changes in their films to attract more young people. This started the big fight between America’s moral guardians and the movie makers.

Hollywood scandals in the early 1920s accelerated the demand for movie censorship. In 1921, the famous comedian Fatty Arbuckle was accused of raping and murdering a young actress; director William Desmond Taylor was found murdered, and a series of front page stories revealed his drug use and sex life; actor Wallace Reid died of a drug overdose; and America’s “sweetheart,” Mary Pickford, got a quick divorce to marry Douglas Fairbanks.

The motion picture business had become an industry. Film companies seeking to integrate production, distribution, and exhibition had one formula in mind: expansion meant capital, capital meant Wall Street, and Wall Street meant conservative business practices. They could not afford any scandals or federal investigations of Hollywood.

The Pressure for Codes Builds

Leff and Simmons write: “In 1921 alone, solons in thirty-seven states introduced nearly one hundred bills designed to censor motion pictures. Women could not smoke on screen in Kansas but could in Ohio; a pregnant woman could not appear on screen in Pennsylvania but could in New York. Six censorship states, which controlled over thirty percent of the theater seats in America, condemned illegitimacy and sexual deviance.”(1) State censors recut films after the producers, and the outcome was unfavorable. Local exhibitors were tired of the cost of censor cuts and attacks by the public and the media. In January 1922, the movie company presidents formed a trade association, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributers of America (MPPDA). Postmaster General Will Hays, an ex-Republican national chairman with White House connections, was chosen as their head. He was a great success as a spokesperson, but failed as a censor regulator of movie content.

Under Hays, Hollywood instituted a morals clause that, as part of the standard employment contract, regulated performers’ off-screen lives: “The artist agrees to conduct himself with due regard to public conventions and morals and agrees that he will not do or commit any act or thing that will tend to degrade him in society or bring him into public hatred, contempt, scorn or ridicule, or that will tend to shock, insult or offend the community or ridicule public morals or decency or prejudice the producer or the motion picture industry in general.”(2) Furious with such self-regulation and restraints, many ignored the contract, and so the scandals continued.

A mainly Protestant anti-movie lobby grew larger and more threatening in the mid-1920s. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), the Reverand William H. Short’s Motion Picture Research Council, and Canon William Shaefe Chase’s Federal Motion Picture Council, among others, all lobbied for federal action. Supporters of cencorship bills claimed that movies were immoral, vile, and corrupting young people. With the advent of —talking— films, the moral guardians of America faced a bigger threat: movies were more popular and dialogue challenged public norms. According to Black: —In 1928 the New York State censorship board cut over 4,000 scenes from more than 600 films submitted, and Chicago censors sliced more than 600 scenes.—(3) Martin Quigley, owner and publisher of the industry trade journal Exhibitors Herald-World, initiated in 1929 the first attempt by Catholics to influence the film industry. Believing that government censorship was futile, he began thinking of a code that would include rules, regulations, and philosophy. Father FitzGeorge Dinneen, Chicago censor board advisor, sent him to Father Daniel Lord, a St. Louis University professor who could write the document. The resulting production code had three working principles:

• No picture should lower the moral standards of those who see it.

• Law, natural or divine, must not belittled, ridiculed, nor must a sentiment be created against it.

• As far as possible, life should not be misrepresented, at least not in such a way as to place in the mind of youth false values of life.(4)

The production code termed movies entertainment, and those who made them were obligated to produce —correct entertainment— for mass audiences. Movies had a profound impact on the —bodies and souls of human beings,— and could —affect spiritual and moral progress.— Hays saw the code in early 1930. He later wrote: —My eyes nearly popped out when I read it. This was the very thing I had been looking for.—(5) The code announced specific limitations on language and behavior. Lots of offensive words and phrases were banned, and the ridicule of religion, nudity, evocative dances, depiction of illegal drug use, and scenes of childbirth were prohibited. The code was explicit when it came to on-screen crime and sex:

I. Crimes against the Law

These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for imitation.

1. Murder

1. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not inspire imitation
2.  Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified

2. Methods of crime should not be explicitly presented

1. Theft, robbery, safe cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method
2. Arson must be subject to the same safeguards
3. The use of firearms should be restricted to essentials d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented

3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented a. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

II. Sex

The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not interfere that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing. 1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively. 2. Scenes of Passion a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot. b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive postures and gestures, are not to be shown. c. In general passion should so be treated that these scenes do not simulate the lower and baser element.(6) Interestingly, the above principles set forth by a Catholic scholar were in perfect accord with the moral codes of Islam, another Abrahamic religion that prohibits the vivid depiction of actions not approved by God.(7) By the beginning of the Depression, film studios turned increasingly to themes of sex and violence to attract audiences. Finally, Hays used the resulting public reaction to persuade the studios that enforcing the code would be the most secure and economical answer to their troubles. If the movie industry regulated itself, it could prevent likely government intervention. The film companies were in debt, having spent a lot of money to introduce sound, and many had lost money in the stock market crash of 1929. Desperate to cut costs, they decided to avoid paying to revise the film after the censorship boards made their edits, by following the code before making their movies. The code was adopted in 1930.

Joe Breen Gets Involved

During 1930-34, movie producers ignored and openly mocked the code. The pressure continued from the Catholic Church with the support from Jewish and Protestant leaders. In 1934 Joe Breen, a strict Catholic moralist working as a public relations man for the production code in Hay’s office, was hired to run Hollywood’s Production Code Administration (PCA). Breen brought new standards: —The PCA had the authority to review all movies and demand script changes. Any theater that ran a film without the PCA seal of approval would be fined $25,000.—(8) Finally the Code had some power. Studios accepted it and produced films that met Breen’s standards. Largely because of his efforts to get the code implemented, it has become known as Breen’s Code. It lasted for more than two decades, being officially abandoned only in 1968. Breen’s Code is a perfect example of people affecting the behavior of institutions whose motives may not match the best interests of the people they serve. By expressing their dissatisfaction and organizing to pressure the motion picture industry, Americans managed to change the nature of the movie industry’s products toward higher moral standards held in common by most monotheistic religions. As we go into the twenty-first century, there are many areas in which people of faith can work together to make a positive change in their societies and the world

Footnotes

1. Six states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New York, Maryland, Kansas, and Virginia. Leonard J. Leff, and Jerold L. Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), 4.
2. Ibid., 5.
3. Gregory D. Black, Hollywood Censored (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 34.
4. Leff and Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono, 284-85.
5. Black, Hollywood Censored, 40.
6. Leff and Simmons, The Dame in the Kimono, 284-85.
7. Bukhari, —The Prophets,— No. 8.
8. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/beyond/hollywood.html.

Additional References

• O’Connor, John E. and Jackson, Martin A. (eds.). American History/American Film.
• New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979. Walsh, Frank. Sin and Censorship. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

As this simple example shows, the existence of something has different stages or degrees. The stages through which a book passes might be called ‘worlds’: the ‘world’ of knowledge or meaning, the world of arranging and organizing, the world of matter or material forms. In the same way the universe has different kinds of existence in different ‘worlds. In oriental philosophy generally and in Islamic philosophy particularly, these worlds are usually referred to as the high empyrean heaven, the world of unconditioned existence, the world of the spirits, the world of the immaterial forms or symbols the visible or material world and the eternal world. And there are still other worlds between these.

Creation passes through these worlds and in the material world takes on a completely new, different form. In this world, the one in which we presently live, meaning or knowledge needs matter to come into material existence in order to be seen or known. Since the earth is a place where all of the Creator’s Names are manifested and His Works exhibited, it has a very important place in existence and, despite its small size, it is mentioned in the Qur’an together with heavens. Earthly existence is commonly divided into three or four ‘kingdoms’: the kingdom of elements, the vegetable kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom. These ‘kingdoms’ are obviously interconnected: man’s body is made up of elements and has some features in common with vegetable and animal forms. With regard to the worldly aspect of his being, as Ali, the fourth Caliph, said, man is the child of the earth.

The materialistic point of view restricts man’s existence to his physical aspect only and regards all the metaphysical aspects of his existence as derivative from his physical aspect. However, it is plainly seen that man is so complex a being with such comprehensive faculties, desires and feelings, that it is impossible to attribute the metaphysical dimension of his existence to deaf, blind, ignorant, unconscious and inert matter. In imagination he can traverse in a few seconds the whole realm of material existence and go beyond it. His feelings and desires are not restricted to the physical world; they extend beyond it. He loves and hates, pities and cherishes enmity and vengeance, is pleased and dissatisfied, rejoices and is grieved, etc. These and other similar feelings which encompass the whole of existence all have different and lasting effects on him. The pains coming from past misfortunes and the anxieties he feels about his future never leave him. His needs are infinite, so are his desires and ambitions. So, it is impossible that this basic dimension of man’s existence which distinguishes him from all other creatures and which gives each individual human being a particular character, potential, countenance and temperament, originates in matter. It comes from the worlds far beyond the material world. God Almighty directly ‘breathes’ it into man, thus making him a mainly metaphysical being in the physical world. Thus, man has two dimensions in his being, one the worldly dimension composed of his physical structure, and vegetable and animal aspects, the other, the heavenly, metaphysical dimension comprising his inner faculties such as intellect, memory, imagination and ‘heart’, etc. and his metaphysical needs and desires, morality, spiritual questing and lofty ideals. This complexity in the essential being and character of man is the origin of certain general consequences, among which are:

a. Man has a special relation with his environment, his relatives, other human beings, animals and the whole of nature. Just as the whole life-history and features of a tree end or are included in its fruit, so too man, as the fruit of the tree of creation, contains in his being all the principal aspects or features of existence. This essential feature of his being must be considered in man’s relations with his natural environment; the neglect of it in modem times is the basic reason for modern environmental problems.

b. Since man is endowed with free will and great potentialities which can be continually expanded through learning and practice, the Creator did not restrict his drives or faculties. For example, the Creator put no limits upon man’s powers of anger, lust and reason. The power of anger is the origin of his instincts of defence: the power of lust is the source of his animal appetites, among them the urge to have relations wýth the opposite sex; the power of reason is the centre of his activities of intelligence and intellect. We may note also that man carries in his being the main characteristics of every animal. For example, he can be as rapacious as a wolf, and as cunning and deceiving as a fox. ‘Decked out for mankind is the passionate love of desires for the opposite sex and offspring, for hoarded treasures of gold and silver, for branded horses, cattle and plantations, for all kinds of worldly things.’

If man lets his powers drive him and obeys their demands, and if he does not discipline his animal characteristics, then these powers and characteristics can become the source of innumerable vices. If undisciplined, his power of anger can cause great crimes such as murder, all kinds of injustices and violations of others’ rights; the power of lust can lead man to consume whatever he finds, to earn in any way he finds convenient, to commit many crimes such as theft, usurpation, to have illicit sexual relations and seek to hide the consequences with abortion and infanticide. The power of reason, if it is not used according to certain standards, can be a means for such deceitful practices as demagogy, lying and sophistry. This power which has enabled man to realize admirable scientific and technological successes and developments in recent centuries, has also brought to mankind many disasters unparalleled in human history such as continual wars, machines for killing and destruction on an unbelievable scale, and increasing environmental pollution. In short, because of his unrestricted powers, man, if undisciplined, can be an agent of destruction and make life and the world into a dungeon for himself.

Man is a social being, compelled to live together with his fellow-beings. Harmonious social life requires justice and mutual helping which is only possible by man’s conformity to certain rules or standards of conduct. Necessarily, these rules restrict his powers. Since man’s essential needs and character have remained stable since his appearance on the earth, these rules and standards must be universal and stable and applicable to all men in all times and places. It is highly questionable whether man can know what and of what character these rules and standards must be. It is a plain fact that it is almost impossible for even two men to agree on all points. If the task of establishing the rules and standards were given to one individual or to one family or to one class or to one nation or to those with enough power to put them into effect (i.e. force others to obey), the consequence must inevitably be injustice and inequality among people. Therefore, a universal or transcendent intellect is necessary. Such an intellect can only be derived from God, as manifested in religion revealed by the Creator of all existence, Who knows all things, internally and externally, from the largest to the smallest, and all their interconnections from before to after time. However, since it is impossible for every human being individually to receive Divine revelation, God choose some persons among human beings (the Prophets and Messengers) and charged them to convey His religion to people. After the Last Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, no one and no institution has the right to be an intermediary between God and human beings. Only those who are well-versed in religious sciences can offer authoritative guidance for others concerning the problems people may encounter. By obeying God-established rules or standards, a man can restrict his powers in a way that results in justice and equity among people.

Man’s powers, desires and faculties are given to him so that he should channel them into virtues. For example, he is not expected to annihilate his lust, but to satisfy it in lawful ways and use it as a means of reproduction. Thus, the happiness of man lies in his restricting his power of lust within the lawful bounds of decency and chastity, without indulgence in debauchery and dissipation. Similarly, his power of anger is given to man so that he may use it in defence of his sacred values – religion, life and property, nation – against attacks. That is, he must not use it unlawfully to exploit and oppress, or injure and kill, others. He must restrict it within the bounds of valour and chivalry and exercise it for the promotion of a sacred value. Again, the virtuous direction in the exercise of reason is understanding, wisdom and truthfulness. Reason must not be used to deceive others for selfish advantage.

Man also has certain feelings which are intrinsic to his nature, such as jealousy, hatred, enmity, hypocrisy and ostentation. If such feelings are not trained and directed to virtue, they consume man. For example, jealousy must be channelled into emulation free of rancour, which inspires man to imitate those who excel him in goodness and good deeds. Hatred and enmity should be directed primarily against his own carnal self and the bad aspects of his character. As for hypocrisy and ostentation, he must try to be rid of them. If that is impossible for him, he should at least try to make show of only the better sides of his character and compete with others in virtuous deeds, rather than virtuous words or gestures.

There is another point to emphasize concerning the happiness or perfectibility of man: Man is not a being composed of only body and intellect. He has also a spirit which requires satisfaction, without which he can never find true happiness. Spiritual satisfaction is possible only through belief in God Almighty and aspiration to ‘reach’ Him and gain eternal happiness in the other world. The physical world, man’s carnal self, time and place are the thick walls of his worldly dungeon. Confined within the walls of this dungeon, man can by no means find happiness or lead a happy life. He can escape or be freed from this dungeon by means of belief and regular worship, and by refraining from all kinds of sins. In short, as Said Nursi writes (The Letters 2, 1995, p.2) the highest aim of creation and its most sublime result is belief in God. The most exalted rank of humanity is the knowledge of God. The most radiant happiness and sweetest bounty for mankind is the love of God issuing from the knowledge of God. The purest joy for the human spirit and the purest delight for mans heart is the spiritual ecstasy contained within the love of God. Indeed, all true happiness, pure joy, sweet bounties and unclouded pleasures are undoubtedly contained within the knowledge and love of God. The one who knows and loves God is either potentially or actually able to receive endless happiness, favours, enlightenment and understanding. While the one who does not truly know and love Him is afflicted spiritually and materially by endless misery, pain and fear. Indeed, even if a man, powerless and miserable, and unprotected amid other purposeless human beings in a world filled with wretchedness, were made the ruler of the whole world, what is this really worth for him? Everyone can understand how miserable and bewildered a condition man endures, if he does not recognize his Owner, discover his Master. If, however, he discovers his Owner and recognizes his Master, then he will seek refuge in His Mercy and rely on His Power, and that desolate world will become for him, a place of rest and felicity, and a place of exchange for the Hereafter.

In sum, man’s real happiness lies in his being a servant to God. This servanthood never reduces man. By contrast, a man who rebels against God relying on himself or the power of science and technology may be a Pharaoh-like tyrant, but he is one who abuses himself so far as to worship before the meanest thing to serve his interest. That man may also be stubborn, misled and misleading: unyielding but so wretched as to accept endless degradation for the sake of a single pleasure:unbending but so mean as to kiss the feet of devilish people for the sake of some base advantage. That man may, again, be conceited and domineering, but since he can lind no point of support in his heart, he reduces himself to an impotent vainglorious tyrant. He may also be a self-centered egoist, who strives to gratify his material, carnal desires and pursues his personal interests after certain national or rational interests. As for a sincere servant of God, he is a worshipping servant, but one who does not degrade himself to bow in adoration or humiliation even before the greatest of the created. He is a dignified servant who does not regard as the goal of worship a thing of even the greatest benefit like Paradise. Also, he is modest, mild and gentle, but he does not lower himself voluntarily before anybody other than his Creator beyond what He has permitted. He may also be weak and in want, and be aware of his weakness and neediness. Yet he is independent of others, owing to the spiritual wealth which his Munificent Owner has provided for him, and he is powerful as he relies on the infinite Power of his Master. He acts and strives purely for Gods sake, for God’s good pleasure, and to be equipped with virtues.

To be a good, virtuous servant of God Almighty and thereby find true happiness, a man must oppose his carnal self and fight against it so as to always use his will in the correct way. Life, which is the arena of this fighting or holy struggle, find its true meaning through this struggle, evolves and is perfected. The pleasure of this struggle lies in itself. It is like climbing an upward path. Walking on levelled surfaces does not give man any pleasure, but when one who continuously climbs hills or walks an uphill road reaches the summit and wipes the sweat from his forehead, he experiences the great pleasure of achievement. But for winter, spring would not be so beautiful. So, man’s true happiness and the real pleasure of life lie in his struggle against the temptations of his carnal self and Satan and becoming victorious against both. This is how a man can rise along the path of perfectibility toward the heavens, toward endless and eternal happiness and pleasures, toward being truly human and recovering his primordial or original state as the best pattern of creation and eternal inhabitant of Paradise.