Just a note, as a follow up to the general email I sent to regular BQ attendees. Wes has offered to conduct a tour of his grounds for those who are interested. This will start at 5:30, so come early if you want to participate. The potluck dinner will commence at 6:00, and the discussion will follow at 7:30, as usual. Sadly, Zoom access to the meeting will not be possible this time. <Des>
< Wes> Are we good and some people go bad? Or are we cruel and some people fight that tendency? As UUs, many of us are involved in social justice activities. What would you do if there were no social justice issues? Will they ever all be resolved? Are we fighting our own cruel tendencies or protecting victims from the cruelties of others?
This question came to my mind since I find that most literature I read is based on some segment of the population being cruel to the rest. Don’t you just want to read a feel-good story sometimes?
When I discussed this with someone, they asked whether children can be cruel? I responded by pointing out all the bullies. Granted, bullies are usually raised by bullies, making it environmental rather than nature. But, where did the first bully come from?
Consider also the history of war. There have always been wars usually with someone wanting to control others or take what they have. What about slavery – complete domination of another person?
As I have gone through the AI results, the adage that “power corrupts” came to mind.
[Gemini] The question of whether humanity is inherently good or cruel is a timeless and complex one, debated for centuries by philosophers, theologians, and now, scientists. There is no single, universally accepted answer, but rather a spectrum of viewpoints, each with its own compelling arguments.
The Philosophical Perspectives
Historically, this debate is often framed by two opposing philosophers:
- Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes believed that in a "state of nature," without government or social order, human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He saw humans as fundamentally self-interested and driven by a desire for power. For Hobbes, society and laws are necessary to control our innate cruelty and prevent constant conflict.
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: In direct opposition to Hobbes, Rousseau argued that humans are born good and pure, like a "noble savage." He believed that it is society, with its emphasis on property, competition, and inequality, that corrupts us and brings out our worst tendencies.
Beyond these two, other perspectives exist:
- Aristotle and Confucius: Both argued that morality is not innate but is something we learn and develop through conscious effort and proper upbringing. Our nature gives us the potential for goodness, but it requires cultivation and societal influence to be realized.
- The "Blank Slate": This view, often associated with figures like John Locke and Sigmund Freud, suggests that we are born without an inherent moral compass, and our character is shaped entirely by our experiences, environment, and education.
The Scientific and Psychological Evidence
Modern research in psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience has added new layers to this ancient debate, often providing evidence that supports a more nuanced view:
- Evidence for Innate Goodness:
- Infant Studies: Researchers have conducted experiments showing that even very young babies (pre-verbal) show a preference for "helpful" characters over "unhelpful" ones in simple puppet shows. This suggests a basic, hardwired preference for altruism and cooperation.
- Altruism and Empathy: Studies have shown that people often make faster, more intuitive decisions that are cooperative and altruistic, while more selfish decisions tend to be made with more reflection. This could suggest that our "gut reaction" is to be good.
- Prosocial Behavior: Research on "lost wallets" in various countries found that a large majority of people returned the wallets, and were even more likely to do so when the wallet contained a larger sum of money. This suggests that the desire to be an honest person and a fear of being seen as a thief often outweighs the potential for a short-term monetary gain.
- Evidence for Innate Cruelty (or Selfishness):
- The "Dark Side": Psychology also acknowledges our capacity for selfish and destructive behavior. Classic experiments like the Milgram obedience study {in which participants were instructed to shock other participants} and the Stanford Prison Experiment {in which volunteer “guards” became increasingly cruel to volunteer “inmates.”} demonstrated how easily ordinary people can be influenced by social pressures and authority to commit cruel acts.
- Evolutionary Perspective: From an evolutionary standpoint, self-interest and survival are powerful drives. While cooperation is also a key survival strategy, so are competition for resources and the protection of one's own group. Our brains have evolved to prioritize self-preservation, which can sometimes come at the expense of others.
A Synthesis: Both and Neither
The most common and compelling contemporary view is that the question itself is a false dichotomy. Instead of being either good or cruel, human nature is a complex and paradoxical mix of both. We are neither inherently angelic nor demonic.
- Potential for Both: We are born with the capacity for incredible empathy, compassion, and cooperation, as well as the potential for violence, selfishness, and cruelty.
- The Role of Context: Our actions are not solely determined by our innate nature, but are a product of the interplay between our biological predispositions and our environment, upbringing, and culture.
- It's a Choice: As many philosophical and religious traditions have long held, our moral journey is about the choices we make. The "nature" is the raw material; our character is what we build with it. We have the ability to fight our selfish tendencies and cultivate our compassionate ones, and vice versa.