Plato Human Nature Analysis

My views on human nature are very similar to the beginning of the year, I honestly believe that humans are inclined to do good for our benefit. The traditional rationalist theory resonates with me the most because of the way it defines the characteristics of a human. Plato describes humans as having three essential qualities: aggression, desire, and reason. Wherein the human uses reason to control the others, the aspect of this belief that supports my view is that if a person has learned to restrain and control his or her appetites and aggressive impulses the person will gain the ability to do what reason says is best. It is implied that reason is good because we are not giving into impulses that cause us to do harmful things. Plato meant that

By more accurately describing our reason as capacity for reason, there is more logical consistency in the statement. Capacity for reason doesn't currently make us good or bad, but once we learn how to reason that would make us good. Plato supports my criticism when he says that uncivilized people such as barbarians could justifiably be slaved by more rational humans implying that barbarians are not human, or, as human, as reasonable people because they are uncivilized. If I compare reasonableness to other learned traits or capacity for intelligence such as learning math, learning to quantify the world around us is something we have the capacity for but not doing it does not make us nonhuman. Therefore in this regard Plato’s reasoning is flawed because he conflates the capacity to learn with actual learning. A more accurate description of this philosophy would be that humans nature is to be aggressive and want things while also having an inclination towards learning and qualifying the world around

Personally I would like to live in the world that has me as the focal point where laws are made for the maximization of my pleasure which is why egoism and hedonism resonate with me so much. However realistically on a global scale it would be best to use Kant's categorical imperative (page 543). I believe that Kant’s categorical argument is similar to utilitarianism in the sense of creating universal unchanging laws; which should never be broken unless it is possible for everyone to do it, and I should be willing to have everyone do it. The universality of laws are specifically useful because they allow for consistency for decision-making and avoiding discrimination. All the factors including justification for an action would need to be considered when making a decision and this would be a rule, that under all circumstances must be true. One of the criticisms is that universal laws are bad because some universal practices have poor consequences which are bad, because they overlook small differences in situations, and try to apply one law to all circumstances. The example used in the book is that two civilizations 1 civilized and 1 uncivilized want to kill an elder. The criticism states that the universality of laws neglects outside factors that caused a decision