Human, All Too Human, Part 102 summary
Part 102 of 152 · 1 min to read the part
In 102, the speaker rejects the distinction between natural necessity and supposedly free human action, then explains deliberate harm through self-preservation. Killing a troublesome fly and punishing a criminal support the claim that people seek pleasure or avoid pain, doing what their understanding presents as advantageous.
What happens
- The speaker contrasts our acceptance of harmful weather with our moral blame of people who cause injury.
- The supposed difference between natural necessity and human free will is declared false.
- Killing a fly and punishing a criminal show that deliberate injury is not always judged immoral.
- The speaker extends self-preservation to all harmful acts, explaining them as seeking pleasure or avoiding pain.
- The conclusion endorses Socrates and Plato: people act according to what their intellectual capacity makes seem advantageous.
Free for 3 months
Get the full summary of Humain, trop humain : un livre pour esprits libres, free
- 200,000+ classics as eBooks, audiobooks and 15-minute summaries, and print and large print at cost
- Up to 5 readers in your home on one plan
Commencez 90 jours gratuitsNothing to pay today. 0,14 USD a day in the first year, then 0,27 USD a day.
In this part
Quick check
Why does the state inflict pain on a criminal in the example?
Free for 3 months
Get the full summary of Humain, trop humain : un livre pour esprits libres, free
- 200,000+ classics as eBooks, audiobooks and 15-minute summaries, and print and large print at cost
- Up to 5 readers in your home on one plan
Commencez 90 jours gratuitsNothing to pay today. 0,14 USD a day in the first year, then 0,27 USD a day.
200,000+ classics to read, hear and hold
15-minute summaries today, eBooks and audiobooks as each book opens, and printed books, large print included, at cost.
Try 3 months free
