In his book “Emotional Amoral Egoism: A Neurophilosophical Theory of Human Nature and Its Universal Security Implications,” author Nayef RE Al-Rodhan eloquently expounds his new philosophical approach to how human nature works. The core of his approach sees human nature as a biased tabula rasa, a stark difference from earlier approaches such as Rousseau, who imagined that humans were naturally good, or Hobbes, who saw human actions as driven solely by instinct.

In contrast to these earlier philosophies, Al-Rodhan presents a more differentiated view of human nature. His point of view is a mix between human instinct and environmental factors that shape the way we decide what actions to take. Because of this mixed view, the background section that he explores and lays out the foundations of his philosophy is more challenging, combining traditional philosophical statements with basic scientific discourse.

So what is the biased tabula rasa that Al-Rodhan is talking about? Using this term, it is quite simple to explain his view of how genetic predisposition and environment will interact to shape our nature and guide our actions. Tabula rasa used to mean a clean slate, a mind, or being open to outside influences for guidance. Al-Rodhan rejects this view of human nature, arguing that the environment, while it still has a place in our decision tree, is limited in influence by genetics. We are born with a genetic makeup that we cannot alter, only modify. Genetic factors will to some extent influence how we act, shape our instincts, and limit environmental influences.

To explain his philosophy, Al-Rodhan explores in some depth both the traditional philosophical history, nicely presented in a background chapter to bring the reader up to speed, and basic genetics. The reader will receive all the necessary information to understand philosophy, but the book will challenge the reader to understand philosophy, but also science. As such, it is a departure from traditional philosophy books.

To address the question of whether we are good by nature or learn to be good through analysis, the author argues that humans can be good depending on the situation. He argues that we are driven by self-interest, limited by genetic makeup, and that decisions tend to be based primarily on emotions rather than rational thought.

If this is how the individual acts and makes decisions, what are the implications for our coexistence and can lessons for avoiding international conflict be drawn from this analysis? The author dedicates the final part of his book to this question and presents a theory that stresses the importance of guaranteeing basic human rights to all as a means of limiting the traditional causes of conflict. In his theory, basic human rights would include access to food and housing for all, certainly a challenge in some regions of the world. I think this part of the book may represent the most innovative part of the book. The theory that a better understanding of human nature can lead to less conflict implies that traditional means of seeking peace and coexistence are doomed to failure, as they fail to address the root causes of conflict. Certainly this book will provide enough space for discussion. To fully appreciate this book, especially the author’s insight into conflict and how to achieve peaceful coexistence, the reader should carefully read the opening chapters of the book to fully understand the author’s theory of human nature.