in the 16th century, in the first of a serise of books titled Gargantua and Patagruel, the Franciscan monk Francois Rabelais writes:
| Quote: |
All their life was spent not in laws, statutes, or rules, but according to their own free will and pleasure. They rose out of their beds when they thought good; they did eat, drink, labour, sleep, when they had a mind to it and were disposed for it. None did awake them, none did offer to constrain them to eat, drink, nor to do any other thing; for so had Gargantua established it. In all their rule and strictest tie of their order there was but this one clause to be observed,
Do What Thou Wilt;
because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour. Those same men, when by base subjection and constraint they are brought under and kept down, turn aside from that noble disposition by which they formerly were inclined to virtue, to shake off and break that bond of servitude wherein they are so tyrannously enslaved; for it is agreeable with the nature of man to long after things forbidden and to desire what is denied us. |
It would be nice to believe that human beings are born with an innate sense of honor and virtue. But if you have ever had much experience with children you will often find that they can be selfish and petty to an extreme, even though they can also be capable of great acts of kindness.
What do you believe? Is man a naturally noble creature, or must a person be taught to be kind and honorable, and then kept that way by the rules and laws of society? | Jinx wrote: |
It would be nice to believe that human beings are born with an innate sense of honor and virtue. But if you have ever had much experience with children you will often find that they can be selfish and petty to an extreme, even though they can also be capable of great acts of kindness.
What do you believe? Is man a naturally noble creature, or must a person be taught to be kind and honorable, and then kept that way by the rules and laws of society? |
Another way of framing the question would be : are humans naturally altruistic? (ie do they act for the benefit of others?). In evolutionary biology altruism is taken specifically to mean "behavior that reduces the fitness of the Actor, while raising the fitness of another individual, the Recipient." If you take social interaction generally and look at the effects on reproduction you could reach the following summary:
Social Interaction..............Effect on Actor's reproductive success..........Effect on Recipient's reproductive success
- Altruistic.............................................-.............................................................................+
- Cooperative......................................+.............................................................................+
- Selfish...............................................+..............................................................................-
- Spiteful...............................................-..............................................................................-
So the problem would be to explain how altruistic behaviour could evolve via Darwinian natural selection.
There is an article which gives a reasonable introduction to this whole area to be found here
And here is another site worth a look on this issue since it contains a good reading list and list of sources:
http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/SEGLea/ehb/altruism.htm | Bikerman wrote: |
Social Interaction..............Effect on Actor's reproductive success..........Effect on Recipient's reproductive success
[*]Altruistic.............................................-.............................................................................+
[*]Cooperative......................................+.............................................................................+
[*]Selfish...............................................+..............................................................................-
[*]Spiteful...............................................-..............................................................................-[/list] |
I think that the long term effects of a selfish persons actions are not positive for the him/her | dray101 wrote: |
I think that the long term effects of a selfish persons actions are not positive for the him/her |
Remember that I was talking purely about reproductive success, not success in life generally....Your chart holds true for individuals, but humans are social creatures. While altruism may not be good for an individual, it can be good for the continued survival of a group.
But pure altruism wasn't what I was talking about in my post, though it is part of it.
Would a person who has all their survival needs met, and who isn't constrained by rules and taboos and laws, still live with what we would consider honor and virtue? Would he or she be considerate of the feelings of others? Would he or she work to better themselves by learning, building, or creating art?
Or would that person be completely selfish and lazy?
And would that be a result of the way that person was brought up, what they were taught, or would it be because of human nature?
Arg... I don't know if I'm making myself clear. The words are getting all tangled up in my head today.
Children as young as 18 months old (some younger) display traits of altruism. In one experiment, a scientist pretended to struggle with setting a remote control down... and he dropped the remote as the toddler watched. When the remote was dropped, the child eagerly helped the scientist by picking it up. The child received no praise for his/her actions, and despite not receiving praise, the children were consistent in their acts of altruism. So I'm convinced that yes, by nature, humans are altruistic creatures.
That's not to say they don't have their own selfish tendencies, but it's only because they're young and not quite educated enough to understand and to see through other peoples' eyes. That's pretty deep thinking for such young children. This is where the nurture part comes in. We assimilate the children into thinking "outside of the box" and seeing different points of view, but that comes in later. Every kid has, to some extent, a selfish stage.
1/2 nature and 1/2 nurture
| Jinx wrote: |
| Your chart holds true for individuals, but humans are social creatures. While altruism may not be good for an individual, it can be good for the continued survival of a group. |
But the debate is nature vs nurture and whether humans are born with a sense of altruism. My point was that from an evolutionary standpoint altruism is problematic. I wasn't. however, arguing that it is inexplicable. In a genetically identical group, for example, altruistic behaviour would be perfectly explicable in evolutionary terms (if one takes account of the fact that the important thing is survival of the gene not survival of the individual). | Quote: |
But pure altruism wasn't what I was talking about in my post, though it is part of it.
Would a person who has all their survival needs met, and who isn't constrained by rules and taboos and laws, still live with what we would consider honor and virtue? Would he or she be considerate of the feelings of others? Would he or she work to better themselves by learning, building, or creating art?
Or would that person be completely selfish and lazy?
And would that be a result of the way that person was brought up, what they were taught, or would it be because of human nature?
Arg... I don't know if I'm making myself clear. The words are getting all tangled up in my head today. |
No...I think I understand your point, and I think it is reasonably well made. My answer is that my understanding of evolution leads me to believe that it would be more, if not entirely, due to upbringing, than than an inherited trait (human nature). But I would also point out that the very ideas of honour and virtue are largely cultural. What is seen as honourable in one culture may be completely dishonourable or worse in another.
I hope I am not taking a liberty if I re-express your question slightly as:
"is there a 'code of conduct' built into humans? and if so, to what extent does this includes concepts of fairness, truth, self-sacrificing behaviours (altruism), empathy and creativity?"
Would that be fair? | Soulfire wrote: |
| Children as young as 18 months old (some younger) display traits of altruism. In one experiment, a scientist pretended to struggle with setting a remote control down... and he dropped the remote as the toddler watched. When the remote was dropped, the child eagerly helped the scientist by picking it up. The child received no praise for his/her actions, and despite not receiving praise, the children were consistent in their acts of altruism. So I'm convinced that yes, by nature, humans are altruistic creatures. |
But by 18 months a child has already learned a huge amount. Infants are 'learning machines' in that they pick up and internalise things in their environment in a manner and at a rate which is unique to that phase of life. | Quote: |
| That's not to say they don't have their own selfish tendencies, but it's only because they're young and not quite educated enough to understand and to see through other peoples' eyes. That's pretty deep thinking for such young children. This is where the nurture part comes in. We assimilate the children into thinking "outside of the box" and seeing different points of view, but that comes in later. Every kid has, to some extent, a selfish stage. |
This is the key. Is the selfishness inherent and the co-operation and empathy learned? | Quote: |
| 1/2 nature and 1/2 nurture |
Hmm...that is surely a bit specific? The case has yet to be made that any of it is nature, let alone a specific ratio.
I remain in the 'don't know' camp for the very good reason that I really don't know whether altruism and other social behaviourism is inherited at all.
Here's some extra reading which I found interesting..
http://encycl.opentopia.com/term/Altruism
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=237
http://www.comw.org/socbio899.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism | Quote: |
| But by 18 months a child has already learned a huge amount. Infants are 'learning machines' in that they pick up and internalise things in their environment in a manner and at a rate which is unique to that phase of life. |
Remember, I said some are younger as well. I still find it quite extraordinary that such "advanced" traits of altruism exist at such a young age, despite whether the child has learned them or inherited them.
I never said that it was inherited, just pointing out that the human brain is being proven to develop a lot sooner than many of us previously believed, and continues to develop into time when many consider brain growth to slow or stop. | Soulfire wrote: |
| Quote: | | But by 18 months a child has already learned a huge amount. Infants are 'learning machines' in that they pick up and internalise things in their environment in a manner and at a rate which is unique to that phase of life. |
Remember, I said some are younger as well. I still find it quite extraordinary that such "advanced" traits of altruism exist at such a young age, despite whether the child has learned them or inherited them.
I never said that it was inherited, |
but you did, if we accept that human nature is the 'nature' part of the nature/nuture pair. - specifically, you said "So I'm convinced that yes, by nature, humans are altruistic creatures." | Quote: |
| just pointing out that the human brain is being proven to develop a lot sooner than many of us previously believed, and continues to develop into time when many consider brain growth to slow or stop. |
As a dedicated believer in Darwinian evolution, it is impossible to believe in altruism. In every case in nature where altruism is initially observed it can always eventually be attributed to a non-obvious selfish driving force. The motivation in humans is obviously much more difficult to assess sometimes due to the human mind working in fiendishly complicated an devious ways, but im sure the same applies.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Children as young as 18 months old (some younger) display traits of altruism. In one experiment, a scientist pretended to struggle with setting a remote control down... and he dropped the remote as the toddler watched. When the remote was dropped, the child eagerly helped the scientist by picking it up. The child received no praise for his/her actions, and despite not receiving praise, the children were consistent in their acts of altruism. So I'm convinced that yes, by nature, humans are altruistic creatures.
That's not to say they don't have their own selfish tendencies, but it's only because they're young and not quite educated enough to understand and to see through other peoples' eyes. That's pretty deep thinking for such young children. This is where the nurture part comes in. We assimilate the children into thinking "outside of the box" and seeing different points of view, but that comes in later. Every kid has, to some extent, a selfish stage.
1/2 nature and 1/2 nurture |
Was this scientist it's parent? Did this scientist live with this child all the time? What was this child taught when it wasn't with this scientist? These are the questions you have to ask yourself. If a child is taught at home to be kind, then a few minutes with someone else won't change that fact. A child will do what it's taught to do. If you take a child and don't show love and affection, then it has no way of knowing what those things are, so therefore, can't show them to others. If you take a child and teach them that everything they do, wheither good or bad, if fine, then that child grows up believing that they can do no wrong. It's never been taught boundaries.
I think it's 90% nuture and only 10% nature.[quote: Bikerman]I hope I am not taking a liberty if I re-express your question slightly as:
"is there a 'code of conduct' built into humans? and if so, to what extent does this includes concepts of fairness, truth, self-sacrificing behaviours (altruism), empathy and creativity?"
Would that be fair?
[/quote]
Yes, that's pretty much it exactly.
I know this question has been debated by great minds for ages, and we are hardly going to solve it here.
What got me thinking about it, though, is watching the kids here.
My husband and I are keeping four of our grandkids while thier father is deployed to Iraq, and thier mother is in Basic Training. They range in age from 4 to 9. We also share a house with my step-daughter and her family, wich includes two young children (4 and 7), and occasionally babysit another grandchild, age 2. So, with a simi-wild tribe of 7 children (I am pretty new the the whole child raising thing, being a second wife and having no children of my own), I get a lot of opportunities to watch the way they interact.
At one extreme, one of them is increadibly sweet. She is kind and loving, and at age 6, she goes out of her way to help people whenever she can.
At the other extreme, one of the 4 year old boys is sneaky, mean, and steals (I'm doing the best I can to straighten him out, but he seems to always be up to something). The other kids fill out the spectrum in between. (I love all of them, but sometimes I want to pull my hair out 
)
I can't help but wonder how much of what they do is because of who they are, and how much is due to how they've been raised. | Jinx wrote: |
[quote: Bikerman].....
At one extreme, one of them is increadibly sweet. She is kind and loving, and at age 6, she goes out of her way to help people whenever she can.
At the other extreme, one of the 4 year old boys is sneaky, mean, and steals (I'm doing the best I can to straighten him out, but he seems to always be up to something). The other kids fill out the spectrum in between. (I love all of them, but sometimes I want to pull my hair out )
I can't help but wonder how much of what they do is because of who they are, and how much is due to how they've been raised. |
It's a fair question and one which belongs I think here in philosophy rather than in the science forum, but it certainly straddles the two. My own opinion (and I think this is still an area where opinion is all we have for the moment - science is only starting to attack the problem) is that genetic inheritance certainly influences a child/person and sets boundaries on what that person can physically and mentally achieve BUT in most cases these boundaries are well beyond 'norm' and of little practical significance.
There are some genetic differences which produce gross physical and/or mental difference from the 'norm' which we would normally call disabilities, but in most cases we are talking about subtle behavioural differences as in your example. Here the picture is murky. It may well be that there is a generic pre-disposition to certain types of behaviour - I personally think that is the case - but that is a long way from attributing specific behaviours only to genetic inheritance.
I can't put a figure on this for you, as others have done, because I simply don't know and I regard anyone who says they do with suspicion. What I would say is that there is certainly an environmental factor in every case and there may be a genetic factor in some. That is not to criticise, in this case, the way the children were raised - in many cases the 'triggers' or influences are subtle and this whole area is not well understood. Perhaps science will progress in this field to the point where we can make statements with some authority on these matters but, IMHO, we are a long way from that point.
On a general point I think that the only thing that any parent/grandparent/guardian can do is try to provide a supportive, stimulating and nurturing environment and hope for the best. If it is any help then, on a personal note, I was a horrible child - your description of the 4 year old is one my parents could reasonably have used for me for much of my childhood. I have no idea whether and to what extent that was a genetic trait, but I do know that I have changed, so it was not 'decreed', even if there was a genetic tendency.
