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.
Philosophers have studied child development with respect to the appearance of language without outside influence, and basic traits of character if babies are raised in an environment where good and evil values are not judged or controlled. How has this worked out in terms of favoring one type of behavior, or with the development of a spontaneous language?
ReplyDeleteIn philosophical thought and developmental psychology, the idea of studying children raised in isolation—without external influence on language or moral values—is often explored through "feral children" cases. These real-world, albeit tragic and rare, instances provide a glimpse into the outcomes of such an environment. The findings consistently show that a lack of outside influence is not conducive to the development of either spontaneous language or "good" behavior.
The Development of Language
There's no evidence that children spontaneously create a new language in isolation. Instead, the cases of feral children demonstrate a critical period for language acquisition.
No Spontaneous Language: Children raised without human contact do not invent their own spoken language. Instead, they often communicate through grunts, gestures, or animal-like sounds they may have learned from their environment (e.g., from animals they lived with).
Difficulty Learning Later: After they are found, these children have immense difficulty learning to speak a human language. They may learn some words, but they struggle to grasp grammar and syntax, supporting the theory that certain brain functions essential for language must be stimulated during early development.
Theories of Language Acquisition: This evidence strongly supports Noam Chomsky's theory of a universal grammar and the idea that while the capacity for language is innate, it must be activated by exposure to a language during a critical window of development. Without this social input, the ability to acquire language seems to be lost.
The Development of Character
Similarly, a lack of social and moral influence does not lead to a "pure" or "spontaneous" set of moral values. Instead, it seems to result in behavior that is entirely shaped by the survival instincts of their isolation.
No Inherent Morality: The cases of feral children do not favor one type of behavior—good or evil—in the absence of judgment. Instead, these children often exhibit a lack of social and emotional understanding. They may be withdrawn, aggressive, and lack empathy, as they have never been taught or shown how to interact with others in a social context.
Behavioral Traits: Their actions are often driven by immediate needs, such as a desire for food or self-preservation, without any consideration for others. They lack the social skills and norms that we learn from a young age, such as sharing, cooperation, and understanding consequences.
Nature vs. Nurture: This provides a powerful argument against the "blank slate" (tabula rasa) theory, which suggests that a person's character is entirely shaped by their environment. While the environment is crucial, these cases suggest that humans have a biological predisposition for social interaction that is necessary for the development of both language and a moral framework. Without it, development is severely stunted