Nature vs Nurture

The idea of “Nature vs Nurture” is extremely debatable. On one hand, one could argue that our human behaviour is generally controlled by instinct. So that meaning that us as people are controlled by what one might call “human nature”. Opposing that would be the idea that our behaviour I shaped by influence. We become who we are based on our surroundings, rather than it all being ‘just the way we are’. People influence us in so many different ways and that shapes who we are. I will look into British empiricist philosophers later on.

Obviously, we are not completely controlled by human nature, or completely controlled by influence. What I am going to discuss is the general reason behind the way we do the things we do.

Nature

Many argue that our human nature has a big role in the things we do and the decisions we make. Many will argue that we choose to do certain things, because that is the behaviour that is intrinsically ‘programmed’ into us. An example of this would be how we naturally feel the urge to eat when we are hungry and other natural processes. This is one of the biggest arguments for the idea of behaviour controlled by our nature. In fact, in other animals and humans, we will notice that they have these innate feelings to sleep, eat and reproduce. However, the latter is quite controversial.

Today, around 1 in 5 of all women will choose not to have a child. In a more traditional society, women would stay at home and nurture the children, whilst men would go out and earn a living for the family. This is present with animals in the wild. However, as society has progressed, humans have become far more intelligent, and we build complex civilisations, structured with supposedly moral laws. But with civilisations comes social issues, and along comes feminism. The fact that females have been able to overcome this ‘innate’ ability to reproduce shows that it is not innate at all. Before, many believed that women naturally feel maternal towards their children, and naturally have the urge to want children. In today’s society, that is completely different. Many people will be sworn to celibacy, thus not allowing them to reproduce. Furthermore, homosexuality is rapidly increasing, thus leading me to the idea that modern society contributes to ones sexuality, thus ones urge to reproduce. Clearly, homosexuality will not produce any proper, traditional offspring, without something artificial made by human intelligence getting in the way, thus making the “natural” urge to reproduce in fact quite unnatural, and just a consequence of the society we live in.  

One may argue that the most fundamental thing we humans do is down to our human nature. We as humans naturally have the ability to “reason”, and that drives everything we do. We as humans will never do something without having some kind of ‘reason’ behind this. I was once arguing with my brother about this, and I was arguing that there can be circumstances where there is not a reason behind something. I then preceded by picking an ornament up off the table and questioning “was there a reason behind that?”. Well… yes. It is clear that I was arguing for a lost cause, because I picked up the ornament to try and illustrate a very poor point. We as humans are rational thinker, so everything we do will be purposeful, even if it is wrong. There is still a reason behind something if it is wrong. One had their own intentions.

This idea dates back all the way to French philosopher “René Descartes”, and his rationalistic school of thought. He believed that we humans can only truly ‘know’ something through reason. The things you know had to be reasoned with I suppose certain axioms, which is why I suppose he was so interested in the study of Mathematics in explaining the natural world. 

Descartes once said:

“Resolving to seek no knowledge other than that of which could be found in myself or else in the great book of the world,”

-René Descartes

 (Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, 1637)

By this, he means that he is not going to seek no other knowledge than what is already ‘inside him’ (his nature), and what is in “the great book of the world” (certain axioms). This would mean that Descartes is completely for the idea that our human behaviour is controlled by our nature, because it is all about how we reason and how we justify things.

If we humans are controlled by our natural ability to reason, then what is this natural reason behind the things that we do? Well, according to Thomas Hobbes, we reason to benefit ourselves. Hobbes believed that all humans are naturally evil, and as a consequence, everything we do, we will only do to try and benefit ourselves. Just think about it. When have you ever intended to do something that didn't bring any benefit to you; none at all? We may see people and TV, shouting about how much they have done for the world, and how much money they have given to poor starving children, but the reality is that we see these people, and think of them as good people. The fact that we see someone doing what we think to be a “selfless” act, we immediately think of them as good people. And this is of a benefit those trying to look “selfless”, so actually, they are getting some kind of benefit, as they are getting a good reputation.

Thomas Hobbes once said:

“The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against everyone.”

-Thomas Hobbes

(The Leviathan, Chapter XIII Of The Natural Condition Of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity And Misery)

Man has a “condition”, meaning that he is naturally that way. “Everyone against everyone”, means that we are all looking to do things for our own benefit, and not for other people, thus making us all against each other.

This would make many of us believe that we as humans are completely controlled by our nature, not by the world around us, and how we are influenced. However…

Nurture

Generally, this is the belief that our behaviour is mainly controlled by how we are nurture, and what influences us. This goes against the previous belief. Personally, I believe that both human nature and how we are nurtured is what makes us who we are, but how we are nurtured definitely defines who we are the most.

If we look at British empiricists like John Locke and David Hume, the general ideology is that the things we humans know are all derived from the senses. As a consequence, the actions and decisions of humans will all be determined by how they are influenced in their life, and not by whom they naturally are. Hume did not believe in human nature, and we are essentially just bundles of other peoples influence. Without having any sensory experience of it, you don’t actually know it.

One might argue that they are aware of the notion of a unicorn, but have never actually experienced a unicorn in any way. John Locke differentiates between “simple” and “complex” knowledge. “Simple” knowledge is literally the knowledge you get from sensory experience, like the fact that something is green, or is square. From this you get the notion of “complex” knowledge. Complex knowledge is essentially all our simple knowledge bundled into one creative thing. For example, you may sense something that is solid, gold, round and shiny. From this, you develop the complex idea of a coin. From there you may develop the ideas of trade, value, currency and economics. The same method of thinking applies with a unicorn. Similarly, one may not behave exactly the way they are influence, but that is because they are like big balls of complex influence. One is ones surroundings, amalgamated into one human being.

A counter of Descartes’ argument, on how we humans ‘reason’ not from what is outside that we can sense, but what is inside that we know, is that we as humans reason with regards to what we can sense. Without any kind of empirical experience, we have nothing to reason with, thus making the argument redundant.

David Hume once said:

“To hate, to love, to think, to feel, to see; all this is nothing but to perceive.”

-David Hume (A Treatise of Hume Nature, Section VI, Of The Idea of Existence and of External Existence)

We as humans never truly feel something; only perceive. This is because you get all your knowledge through sensory experience, and our empirical experiences vary from person to person in different ways. This all leads onto some fascinating arguments of the nature of our existence, however it is irrelevant to the subject matter.

To finish the section on nurture, John Locke once said:

“No man’s knowledge here can go beyond his experience”

-John Locke

 (An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1689)

Conclusion

It is clear that both nature and nurture contribute to who we are and our social behaviour. However, I strongly believe that how we are nurtured is the biggest. Yes, we as humans have certain innate abilities; however it is clear that we complex human beings are controlled by the world around us, and not what is inside us.

You will consistently notice this in our society. Generally, people who grow up in one area all act a certain way, and people who grow up in another will all act a certain way. That is because the way we behave it mainly down to how we are influenced, and nurtured.