The Roots of Human Nature: Innate Morality or Social Influence?
- Philosophical Perspectives on Human Nature: Hobbes argues that humans are inherently brutal and self-interested, while Rousseau believes humans are born good and are corrupted by society.
- Psychological Experiments: Studies, like those by Karen Wynn, suggest babies may have an innate sense of justice and a preference for good behavior.
- Impact of Society: Bias and social influences shape human behavior, as shown in experiments where babies demonstrate preferences based on shared values and societal norms.
For centuries, philosophers have debated whether humans are born inherently good and later corrupted by society or if they are born with innate tendencies toward evil. This age-old question gained particular prominence during the Enlightenment when thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau offered sharply contrasting views on human nature.
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher who lived through the English Civil War and the execution of King Charles I, articulated a grim perspective on humanity in his seminal work, Leviathan. Hobbes viewed humans as inherently brutal and egoistic. He introduced the concept of a “state of nature,” a hypothetical lawless environment where individuals existed without governance. For Hobbes, this state would not be a utopia but a nightmare characterized by relentless aggression and chaos. He famously described life in this state as “nasty, brutish, and short.” In such a scenario, survival would be uncertain, as the absence of laws would mean that only the strongest could endure until weaker groups banded together to overthrow them. This perpetual struggle for dominance would render life insecure and violent, with freedom existing only at the cost of security.
To escape this bleak reality, Hobbes proposed the establishment of a social contract, wherein individuals would surrender certain freedoms in exchange for protection and order. Under this system, a sovereign, or “Leviathan” would enforce the contract, ensuring stability. Rebellion against the Leviathan, Hobbes argued, would be justified only if the ruler threatened the natural right to life, as this right could not be forfeited. While Hobbes’s view of human nature is deeply pessimistic, historical examples of failed revolutions often lend credence to his theory, highlighting humanity’s capacity for egoism and aggression in the absence of order.
In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an 18th-century philosopher, offered a more optimistic view of human nature. Rousseau rejected Hobbes’s depiction of the state of nature, presenting it instead as an idealized state of harmony and innocence. According to Rousseau, humans in their natural state were empathetic and curious, guided by solidarity and a sense of mutual care. He introduced the concept of “amour de soi,” or self-love, which he described as a healthy form of self-interest rooted in empathy and personal development. Rousseau believed that humans were not innately aggressive or egoistic; rather, it was the process of civilization that corrupted them.
Rousseau famously wrote, “Man is born free, but everywhere in chains,” highlighting his belief that societal structures impose constraints that corrupt human nature. As societies evolved, individuals began comparing themselves to others, driven not by a desire for growth but by vanity, pride, and jealousy. Rousseau referred to this unhealthy comparison as “amour propre,” a destructive form of self-love that fuels competition and materialism, leading people to prioritize societal approval over genuine fulfillment. In Rousseau’s view, civilization replaced natural empathy with artificial desires, eroding the innate goodness of humanity.
Regarding governance, Rousseau argued that humans in their natural state were rational and sociable, making them capable of participating in collective decision-making. He advocated for a form of government that prioritized inclusivity, where every individual’s opinion would be valued. In his book Emile, Rousseau explored ways to preserve the natural goodness of children, emphasizing the importance of curiosity-driven learning and minimal societal interference. He believed children were inherently good and argued that parents should nurture their innate qualities rather than impose rigid structures. Rousseau even encouraged mothers to breastfeed, asserting that such practices would help maintain the natural bond between mother and child, ultimately fostering moral reform within society.
The philosophical debate between Hobbes and Rousseau raises the question of whether humans are born with an innate moral compass. To explore this, psychologist Karen Wynn conducted an experiment in 2001 at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center. Before this study, babies were often regarded as blank slates, devoid of any sense of morality. Wynn’s experiment challenged this assumption by examining whether infants could distinguish between right and wrong.
In the experiment, babies were shown puppet shows featuring characters engaged in different behaviors. In one scenario, a puppet struggled to open a box, and another puppet helped it. In another scenario, a puppet tried to open the box, but a different puppet slammed it shut. After witnessing these interactions, the babies were presented with the puppets and allowed to choose one. The results were striking: around 80% of the babies consistently chose the “helpful” puppet. Even younger infants, who could not physically select a puppet, demonstrated their preference by gazing longer at the helpful character. This study, published in Nature, led Professor Wynn to conclude that babies possess an elemental sense of justice, suggesting that humans are born with a rudimentary moral compass.
However, another experiment revealed a darker aspect of human nature: bias. In this study, babies were offered two types of cereal—Cheerios and Graham crackers—and allowed to choose their preferences. Afterward, puppet shows featured characters who favored one cereal over the other. When given the choice, the babies tended to prefer the puppet that shared their preference. Even more strikingly, when the “other” puppet was mistreated in subsequent scenarios, the babies continued to favor the puppet aligned with their chosen cereal. This demonstrated an early form of tribalism, where individuals show favoritism toward those who share their preferences, even at the expense of fairness.
These experiments suggest that while humans may be born with an innate sense of morality, they also possess biases that can influence their behavior. This duality underscores the importance of societal influence in shaping moral development. While Hobbes argued that humans are inherently egoistic and require strong governance to prevent chaos, Rousseau believed that society’s influence corrupts the natural goodness of individuals. The psychological evidence bridges these views, indicating that humans are neither entirely good nor inherently evil but are shaped by a complex interplay of innate tendencies and environmental factors. Recognizing this balance is crucial in addressing issues such as bias and promoting moral growth in society.
The author is pursuing MS degree in Strategic Studies from NUST, Islamabad.
