The Inherent Good of People - Research Paper Example

The Inherent Good of People Introduction Perhaps one of the most controversial debates in the discipline of psychology is the nature versus nurture debate. The debate assumes quite a number of forms, particularly regarding the different subjects and aspects of human life to which the nature versus nurture debate is relevant and applicable. One such area is people’s propensity to be good or bad. That is, the nature versus nurture debate has sought to explain the inherent goodness or badness of people on the basis of either nature or nurture. “While genetics is the main point of argument by the proponents of the pivotal role of nature in determining whether an individual is good or bad, the proponents of nurture assert that environmental factors are more important in determining peoples’ characters” (Cyprah, P, 3). Among the renowned proponents of the nature-approach were Plato and Descartes, both of whom believed that being bad or good are inborn traits in human beings. In other words, being good or bad occurs naturally, the environmental factors to which one is exposed notwithstanding. Contrary to the line of thought adopted by Descartes and Plato is that postulated by philosophers such as John Locke who asserts that the human mind is rather empty at birth and the environment determines what one’s behaviors and knowledge are. Many scientific studies have supported the heritability of quite a number of personality traits in human beings. “These personality and similarity studies, more so in twins and adopted children, have been extrapolated to support the notion that human goodness in innate” (Riemann et al. P. 1556). The fact that twins have more identical or similar personality supports the arguments of those who feel nature influences traits more than nurture does. By extension therefore, the singular genetic origin of man indicates that the goodness inherent in people is nature- and not nurture-dependent. “The nature versus nurture debate therefore seeks to answer the question of whether one is good because he/she is genetically oriented to do so or as a result of environmental factors” (Plomin & Spinath,P. 112). Nonetheless, majority of scholars and philosopher have adopted a compromise stand that attributes human behaviors to both nature and nurture. This paper discusses the fact that nature plays a more significant role in determining whether a person has high propensity to be good. This paper thus emphasizes hypothesis that people are inherently and naturally good and nurture has little influence on peoples’ personality and characters. Human Beings Inherently Good The assertion and opinion that human beings are inherently good has been in existence since the historical times of Plato and Descartes. This position, taken by different people on the influences of nature on human characters, is shaped by factors such as one’s religion, culture, and life experiences or events. For instance, that nature determines one’s goodness is a belief supported by many religious groups that believe that all human beings are created by God in His own image. The belief that God is inherently good therefore supports the assertion that man is also naturally good. As stated above, the culture that people are born in and grow up in has also fostered the spread of the notion that people are inherently good. “Although many would claim that the society is rather marred by a lot of violence and disorderliness, the larger proportion of the human race does not regard disorderliness and violence as solution to their life’s problems” (Plomin & Spinath,P. 112). From the proportion of people in a given society that do not support violence and disorderliness, it is apparent that human beings are inherently good. In other words, despite the violence experienced in the contemporary society, most people are good by nature and abhor such misconducts and occurrences. In fact, most people are naturally disgusted by acts of violence. If, nurture had more control on the propensity of people to be good, then there would be more people supporting violence and disorderliness in the violent and crime-prone neighborhoods. By portraying this disgust to violence, the society shows, albeit subconsciously, that people are inherently good and that human beings value love, peace, harmony, and unity among other virtues. The cultures that people grow up in, most of which abhor violence and other vices but values love and peace support the notion that people are inherently good. Experiences Peoples’ experiences or life events have also supported the assertion that people are inherently good. For instance, people encounter a lot of situations in which others portray unselfishness by way of helping others. A case in point is blood donation. Many people donate blood for the use of strangers who they never meet and never meet in most cases. Were it not for the goodness that is inherent in people, it would be quite difficult for people to volunteer and donate blood for recipients who are total strangers to them. “In addition, people have continued to donate organs such as liver and kidneys to strangers, implying not only the unselfish nature of these people but also the pain and loss they have to undergo to help others stay alive and happy” (Cyprah, P, 3). The fact that these donors do not seek any rewards for their unselfish acts further highlights the goodness inherent in people. People also surround the needy or victims of calamities such as flood and earthquakes with all sorts of help such as clothing, medicine, shelter, and food. It should be appreciated that in most cases, it is total strangers that come to the help of others during such hours of need and not close ones. However, this is not to suggest that close ones do not help. Instead, in many cases, calamities often affect close people such as family members, implying that only strangers may be in a position to assist. The belief that people are inherently good is thus supported by the influence of the experiences of people assisting others in times of need and trouble, regardless of whether they are strangers or familiar to them. The belief that people have adopted regarding the natural goodness of human beings has subsequently impacted on their ways of life. Certain sections of the society have even called for more space for people to act according to their will since people are inherently good and are less likely to harm themselves or others. That is to say, although laws are important for the peaceful coexistence of people in the society, they simply reinforce the natural ideas of human beings on the manner in which people should conduct themselves. Generally, that most people would choose to be good rather than evil and are more willing to assist other human beings or living things for that matter, and maintain a peaceful and an orderly world are pointers to the inherent nature of goodness in people. That people are inherently good is thus further supported by the fact that people appear to be programmed to respond to love, which is recognized as the greatest of all the forces in human and non-human animals. “In fact, people do not only respond to love and affection and the other forces of virtue; instead, people desire, need, seek, and lavish love on others, love being the main force that connect people in the society” (Riemann et al. P. 1557). Although people are inherently good, it has been rather unfortunate that the manner in which people are treated or valued in the society has jeopardized this innate goodness. The value that a person’s family or community attaches to him/her has been cited to result in people reacting or behaving in certain unnatural ways. In other words, negative perceptions towards people have prompted them to act in certain ways to match or counter such perceptions. “However, even the hardest hearted of people when handled with love, care, and kindness responds in a way that brings out the inherent goodness that may have been overshadowed by certain negative societal forces” (Plomin & Spinath,P. 112). The inherent goodness is therefore constantly threatened by the negative forces in the environment such as criticism and rejection, which result in one questioning their self-worth, value, and importance in the society. Although people are innately good, the different personal and societal expectations heaped on them as they grow may change the nature of an individual. People are thus inherently good and by expecting them to conduct themselves positively in the society, the right reaction is likely to be obtained from them. It would not pay to expect the worst out of people while expecting them to conduct themselves positively. It is thus imperative that people are mad to feel appreciated, loved, and valued so that the best of the innate goodness in them comes out. Conclusion The debate on nature versus nurture has existed in the psychological circles since historical times. Human personality (good and evil) is one area in which the nature versus nature debate has been applied extensively. While some stakeholders assert that nurture or societal or environmental factors play a more crucial role in shaping peoples’ good traits, the proponents of the nature-role assert that human beings are inherently good. The many experiences/events in which people assist complete strangers when in danger or need are indications of the goodness inherent in people. In addition, people constantly seek and respond to virtues such as love, affection, kindness, and friendship, regardless of how hard hearted they are. That most people, even in crime infested or violent neighborhoods abhor crime and other disorders and would rather have peace and harmony also points to the good inherent in people. Nature thus plays a more central role in making people good, implying that goodness is inherent in people. Works Cited Cyprah, M. "Are People Inherently Good?” (2007). Newsvine.com. Retrieved on December 14, 2011. Plomin, R., and Spinath, F. M. "Intelligence: Genetics, Genes, and Genomics". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86.1 (2004): 112. Riemann, A. et al. "Heritability of Facet-Level Traits in a Cross-Cultural Twin Sample: Support for a Hierarchical Model of Personality". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74.6 (1998): 1556-1557. Read More