Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Philosophy: are humans born to be good or evil
Pros and cons of nature vs nurture debate
Pros and cons of nature vs nurture debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Philosophy: are humans born to be good or evil
The question: do I think everyone is evil? Or does everyone turn evil? Eventually, I realized it’s not that intense. I just mistook the two sides of the question are people born violent or are influenced to be violent to each side’s extreme. Later on, I also found it wasn’t that simple, either. I remember when hearing about this assignment by upperclassmen, I immediately thought it was nurture-- people are born with blank slates and, by examples in their environment, begin to turn violent. How could someone be born evil?
Throughout the initial stages of research of this question, I was more inclined to believe that people are born with some characteristics, making them influenced by nature, but their behavior by birth was a blank slate. The first piece of evidence that confirmed my existing pro-nurture belief was a class discussion/Do Now about where we think violent behavior comes from, where I said violence comes as a result of aggression, which is natural, but having violent reactions is led/inspired by examples of
…show more content…
I know kids who have suffered abuse by their fathers, and in all three cases, they’ve chosen to move past it and come to terms with it, not making them resort to violence as Golding’s thesis would predict. I also read a book by Stephen King called Under the Dome where a whole town is trapped under this impenetrable dome. The townspeople go crazy, in accordance to Golding’s thesis, many such as the police department resorting to violence and oppression to control their people. Yet, I also take into consideration the fact that the good people in the story were good before the dome, and the bad people also were bad before. My point here is that the isolation from society brings out one’s true self--to protect and serve others or yourself. Although my opinion has been influenced by this unit, those I’ve learned in my real-life experience I value
A timeless question that continues to stump psychologists. Are humans born good? Do we learn evil traits or are they imprinted into mind as we come into the world. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, written in the early 1800’s, this same question comes into play. Shelley presents two completely different beings, one brought up with a family in a happy setting, the other in solitude hated by everyone. Both human in nature brought up completely different. Frankenstein and the Monster show traits of both good and evil, however, they are both born good.
Nurture brings out the aggressive behaviour in humans. Mikal Gilmore’s book, Shot in the Heart, correlates with the aspect of aggressive behaviour nurture because of how he turned out unlike the other four, who did not have a this ability to kill. The nurture of a child into adulthood develops and creates the aggressive behaviour within the environment. The aggressive behaviour can be found in every human, but it is not until the cognitive development of a child that the aggressive behaviour can start to form and become overpowering. Though the basis of aggression is found in people it is not until a child is exposed to an aggressive
this experience has given me the courage to not be ashamed of wanting to gain more insight into
The question “What makes us who we are?” has perplexed many scholars, scientists, and theorists over the years. This is a question that we still may have not found an answer to. There are theories that people are born “good”, “evil”, and as “blank slates”, but it is hard to prove any of these theories consistently. There have been countless cases of people who have grown up in “good” homes with loving parents, yet their destiny was to inflict destruction on others. On the other hand, there have been just as many cases of people who grew up on the streets without the guidance of a parental figure, but they chose to make a bad situation into a good one by growing up to do something worthwhile for mankind. For this reason, it is nearly impossible to determine what makes a human being choose the way he/she behaves. Mary Shelley (1797-1851) published a novel in 1818 to voice her opinions about determining personality and the consequences and repercussions of alienation. Shelley uses the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau to make her point. Rousseau proposed the idea that man is essentially "good" in the beginning of life, but civilization and education can corrupt and warp a human mind and soul. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (hereafter referred to as Frankenstein), Victor Frankenstein’s creature with human characteristics shows us that people are born with loving, caring, and moral feelings, but the creature demonstrates how the influence of society can change one’s outlook of others and life itself by his reactions to adversity at “birth”, and his actions after being alienated and rejected by humans several times.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
In the world of the living, evil is not inherent and can change or influence a person’s aspect of the world based on the community they are in. Evil is the force of things that are morally wrong and the matter of suffering, wrongdoing and misfortune (Merriam Webster). Evil is not inherent because an evil community can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be claim as not inherent from reading about Josef Mengele, Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will persuade my point that evil is not inherent from the sources that depicts the claim of evil.
...nto carrying out the orders. When other nurses were asked to discuss what they would do in a similar situation (i.e. a control group), 21 out of 22 said they would not comply with the order. Hofling concludes that people are very unwilling to question supposed ‘authority’, even when they might have good reason to as well as are willing to follow authority blindly even against their better judgment and rules in place (Mcleod 2008).
Nature versus Nurture is the name of a long running debate on whether an individual’s behavior is determined by their genes or by how they were raised. John Locke famously held the view that humans had a “blank slate”, which means that human’s personality and character traits are determined by a person’s environment and what they experience. But, many argue against this: for instance, twins are raised similarly, but can have completely different personalities. The real question is this: are people born monsters, or do they become monsters? In Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein and in Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, both authors provide a clear warning of what makes a monster: society’s superficial nature creates monsters, and
...s may never agree on a conclusive degree to which both nature and nurture play roles in human development, but over the years, more improved studies have shown that both are crucial aspects. With all the knowledge we are gaining from these studies, it would be quite limiting to believe that a criminal and his actions are the sole result of heredity. Even in people who do not commit crimes, genes themselves are affected by the prenatal environment. Undoubtedly, the fetus experiences changes in environment, forcing possible changes in heredity and reactionary response. We are likely to never find the answer to how much or how little either, nature or nurture, impacts our lives, but at least we can agree that they both do, in fact, have major roles. Our development is not the culmination of heredity alone, but of a tangled web of experiences and genetics entwined.
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
People have constantly attempted to understand what evil truly is, and, if possible, how to eliminate this evil from their lives. However, first it must be known what it is that is being eliminated. Different people, cultures, and eras have all had a different view of what evil is, and how it affects their lives, and there is no true answer. Because of this, discussing the idea of whether people are born or can be evil is meaningless. The idea of what evil is, and whether people can be evil, is relative and cannot be applied to human nature in a universal way.
... an individual’s behavior. The debate of nurture vs nature may in fact be, as the text suggests, more like a nurture and nature scenario. Ultimately, determining the causes of criminal behavior is a very complex process that will continue to evolve over time.
I believe that people are a byproduct of both their inherited and inborn characteristics, as well as their environment. The nature versus nurture debate has long been a hot debate in the psychology world with evidence supporting both sides of the argument. It is hard to determine whether nature or nurture has more of an influence on our behaviors. For instance, you have a child who is a bully in a classroom. The question is then raised, is this child a bully because his genetic makeup created him to be more aggressive and less empathetic? Or is this child a bully because his home life fosters and rewards him for being aggressive? Or is his home life one where the parents are negligent and aggressive towards the child? If all of the above scenarios were true, then it would be relatively easy to state that the child’s bullying behavior is a byproduct of both his nature and his nurturing. Now let’s look at a professional athlete. Some say a person is born with the skill, hence the phrase natural born athlete. Now a child could be born with the innate aptitude to be an all-star athlete, however, no skill can succeed without practice. Therefore, that would bring to reason that a child could not have any skill to begin with, but with practice they become an all-star athlete. Both of these examples (the bully and the athlete) portray the interconnected and complex ideal of nature versus nurture, with neither providing substantial evidence that
Nurture is constituted by the influence of millions of complex environmental factors that form a child's character. Advocators of nature do not believe that character is predetermined by genes, but formed over time. Although often separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The human conscience is neither innate from birth or entirely shaped through experience, instead, genetics and environmental influences combine to form human behavior, character, and personality traits that constantly change and develop throughout life. The debate on nature versus nurture has existed for thousands of years.
Are human beings born to be good? Or are we naturally born to be evil? A person’s nature or essence is a trait that is inherent and lasting in an individual. To be a good person is someone who thinks of others before themselves, shows kindness to one another, and makes good choices in life that can lead to a path of becoming a good moral person. To be a bad person rebels against something or someone thinking only of them and not caring about the consequences of their actions. Rousseau assumed, “that man is good by nature (as it is bequeathed to him), but good in a negative way: that is, he is not evil of his own accord and on purpose, but only in danger of being contaminated and corrupted by evil or inept guides and examples (Immanuel Kant 123).” In other words, the human is exposed to the depraved society by incompetent guardians or influences that is not of one’s free will in the view of the fact that it is passed on. My position is humans are not by nature evil. Instead, they are good but influenced by the environment and societies to act in evil ways to either harm others or themself.