Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of ViewImmanuel Kant's pragmatic predisposition is expressed as the tendency of man to become "civilized by nature," meaning that man learns to behave in a way that is socially acceptable through his natural instincts and innate behaviors. This theory brings about the question of whether man is naturally good, naturally evil, or whether man is equally likely to be good or evil by nature depending on the influences of his environment. The last of those three theories supports the belief that man has no innate character but is instead a product of his own personal experiences within his environment. Essentially, man has a tendency to become sophisticated by civilization. Character comes from experiences and social relations with society, therefore, man itself has no inborn character, instead character must be developed along the way. Character may be formed by means of discipline or education, which are both necessary in order to make man more socially adapted to the guidelines of society. Man is by nature, good, however, he is also born with a tendency toward evil which is brought about by the encouragement of others in society. For this reason, laws are put in place as limitations on a man's freedom to act or behave in any way which he so desires. It is clearly expressed that man is aware of the fact that he has the ability to make his own choices, and thus possesses a certain degree of free will. However, it is the law that governs and restricts the amount to which man is capable of doing whatever he wishes. Man's concept of justice or injustice ("moral feeling") is what motivates him to actually follow the laws. Although, man's sense of "moral feeling" supports the notion that man is naturally good, it can also be said that freedom is another innate feature of mankind which enables him to become evil. Although it can be believed that man is naturally good, there is an undeniable tendency for man to lust after things that are illegal or to want to behave in ways that violate the law simply because these actions are unlawful. Since man can easily become corrupted by the evils of society, this exposure would obviously have to begin in childhood. Infants are typically thought of as being innocent as birth but as being born into a world of evil. These infants must decide later on in life whether or not they want to give in to the evils of society or whether or not they want to question the behaviors of those around them. Once a child is able to understandwhat is happening in his or her own environment, that child becomes aware of the behavior of others. During childhood is when man is first exposed to the evils of his society because these behaviors are all that a child knows. It is also widely accepted that a child emulates the behavior that he or she notices of others nearby. For example, if a child hears a parent use inappropriate language, he or she tends to mimic that behavior by repeating the explicit language publicly to others with whom they interact with socially. Essentially, the youth is manipulated by the actions and by the discipline of their elders. However, just because man is exposed to these evils during youth, that does not mean that man is required to give into the evils surrounding him. Man has his own free will and can decide whether he wishes to give into these evils or whether he prefers to revert back to his inborn state of natural goodness. Concisely, man makes of himself whatever he wishes, man must make his own decision regarding whether or not to be good or evil after thorough consideration of the way in which others around him behave, and it is by this process that man becomes molded by society.Questions:What I didn't understand is that Kant suggests that laws are put in place to limit freedom so that man does not act solely to satisfy his own desires. But, if man is good by nature, then why do his actions need to be restricted? Is it because society can cause a man to behave immorally? And, if the latter is true, then aren't laws meant to restrict the evils of society? Also, if all men are good by nature but are corrupted by society, then how do other men in society become corrupted in the first place? I assume from my further reading into Immanuel Kant's Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, that those traits which are considered to be good are thought of to be acquired while the traits which are deemed bad are viewed as the result of society's influence on man. However, this still does not accurately explain how man himself becomes evil in the first place except by stating that man is exposed to evil by his vices or his tendency to act in a way which satisfies his desires. This two ideas completely contradict each other because if man is naturally good, then how can he have a tendency to give into his own evils? Kant even notes that the entire situation is "self-contradictory," meaning that there is no possible circumstance where it could make logical