“Human nature is potentially aggressive and destructive and potentially orderly and constructive.” — Margaret Mead, cultural anthropologist, author, and public speaker.
This is a question that mankind has been asking itself since the dawn of philosophy, whether newborn babies are inherently evil or good. If they are born with a moral sense of the difference between right and wrong. Many studies have been conducted to prove a point, but the results have not been consistent enough to create a solid and credible conclusion.
To give an example, many newborn babies may have a bit of racial bias in their minds, but does this really show that humans are inherently racist? According to the famous “Doll Test”, where children aged 3–7 picked four different dolls, all identical other than the color of their skin, the majority of them chose white dolls and associated positive character traits with them, but does this really prove the theory? Children are young and immature with almost zero experience in the outside world. Most of the human interactions they’ll have are with family, who are most likely the same skin color as them. Using this logic, it’s obvious that babies would prefer a doll that looks like them.
Aristotle believed that morality is learned and that we are born with a clean slate that could easily be influenced. We are not born good nor evil, we learn from the people surrounding us and our environment, that is what ultimately decides our morality.
Sigmund Freud, a philosopher with around the same prominence as Aristotle, also believes that humans are born amorally, with no bias at all.
Hobbes V. Rousseau
Perhaps the two biggest philosophers with opposing theories are Hobbes and Rousseau.
Hobbes truly believes that babies are born “nasty” and “brutish”. Without laws and rules to govern us, we might as well be a ruthless civilization with no fidelity and moral compass. He believes that in man’s natural state, there are no such things as “moral thoughts”. We must be controlled and restrained from our natural mindset and decisions if we want to live like an organized society.
Rousseau, on the other hand, firmly believes that the innate nature of man is to be gentle and pure if there are no such things such as corruption or greed to inflate our minds. He openly criticizes Hobbes’ for his philosophical ideas and stated that all evil thoughts come from our poor class system imposed by those with a higher power.
Studies on Human Nature
Many studies conducted on newborn babies that are in the 7–12-month-old range have proven that they make altruistic decisions even though they do not morally understand what is right and wrong. What is the true reason behind this? Do these young children really show feelings of compassion and empathy, or is it all just a coincidence?
These babies were asked to choose from a variety of puppets, animated characters, or even human-like shapes. The majority of them chose the characters that had helpful tendencies, like those standing up to bullies, instead of the meaner ones, those who talked down or even hit other characters.
After many of these studies, the conclusions began to fuse together. Almost all the results were very similar, which led researchers to an obvious theory. Children would pick characters by analyzing their actions rather than pick familiar colors or shapes to them.
A Different Approach
We’ve seen an overview of what philosophers have thought about the topic of whether people were born naturally good or evil. Also, we saw that although a study may have found that newborns might be racially biased, it can easily be disproved by the unfamiliarity that they have due to their age. Finally, we’ve looked at studies that scrutinized decisions that small children made and whether those decisions were good or evil.
Now, we will take a look at how experienced adults who have lived in this world for decades and how they respond when they are left alone. In my opinion, one of the best psychological tests that reveal those emotions come from Stanford. The Stanford Prison Experiment, to be precise.
The Stanford Prison Experiment
The Baltimore Colts just beat the Dallas Cowboys in Miami, Florida with a sold 16–13 score. Apollo 14, carrying three astronauts, lifts off in the third successful lunar landing mission. Starbucks just recently opened its first coffee shop in Seattle.
Philip G. Zimbardo just launched one of the most infamous psychological studies of recent history at Stanford University.
In August of 1971, Zimbardo, with the financial aid of the U.S Office of Naval Research, began a study in which college students take part in a highly realistic prison experiment. These twenty-four volunteers are assigned into two distinct groups, a prison guard, and a prisoner. This study was supposed to look at role-playing, labeling, and social expectations, according to Britannica.
These prisoners were immediately thrown into the mix by actually getting arrested by police officers and being brought to the jail. They were forced to wear a dress, often used in prisons. Everything that happened was recorded, and if done successfully, the study would be finished in two weeks.
After everything was settled after the first few hours, the prisons began a rebellion the second day. Guards forcibly held them back, and started a system that consisted of rewards and punishments to control the prisoners. The guards wore sunglasses so no eye contact would be made.
Eventually, the guards began to savor the control that they held over everyone else. With no one to control them, they could do almost anything they wanted. They were tyrannical and cruel, while the prisoners became depressed and anxious. Some prisoners had been so traumatized that they had to be released in just a few days.
The experiment ended early, only on its sixth day because of the horrid conditions everyone lived in, and how evil the guards became. Looking at the study’s results, it is easy to conclude that the guards quickly assumed an authoritative figure, and demanded more power the longer they stayed in control. The prisoners, with no option, had to give in to the guards. This might mean that man, left with his own devices, may resort to being evil. Although this is a plausible theory, there are many other people who discredit it.
For one, the entire study treated every member confidentially. No one knew each other's names, and therefore, people could perform actions that they normally wouldn’t if their reputation was at stake. Just like on the internet, people will always act tough online, but will not back that up in real life. The guards were also given an extraordinary amount of power over the prisoners, which may also have contributed to their evil mindset. This is the reason why many others think that these guards only became evil because of the authoritative position that they held.
This study was very controversial, so there wasn’t a solid reason that proved whether the man is naturally good or evil, but there are many good arguments to be found here. Overall, this study, disregarding its obvious faults, was very informative and helpful to the psychological and philosophical communities.
The Final Point
In the end, there is no definitive solution to the ever-lasting question of natural morality, if we are born good or evil. If we are left to our own devices, will we act with kindness and thoughtfulness, or with cruelty and carelessness?
You can listen and look at philosophers who have been arguing over this for decades, but the answer doesn’t rest in their hands. It rests in yours. This is a very subjective question to ponder, meaning that it means something different for everyone.
Newborns have shown that they will choose the more altruistic option, but does that mindset last in their lives? Will they choose the same thing in forty years? No matter what, you can choose the answer for yourself.
After all, you are part of the “man”, and your decisions will answer the question for yourself.