A classic debated topic of nurture versus nature has been and always will be an argumentative subject in the scientific world. Some psychologists and scientists believe that one’s behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of one’s upbringing, while other opposing specialists argue the outlook in science that agrees with the naturalist idea. The concept of naturalistic ideas supports that one’s genetic makeup, inherited from one’s parents, is the sole determining factor in one’s behavioral characteristics. However, these two opposing viewpoints have produced a number of questions that have perplexed philosophers for ages. Where do our society’s virtues come from? Are they taught? Are they universal? Are we born with them, or does an individual’s possession of them depend on his or her environment?
One can propose that integrity, patience, and other virtues are taught to one’s society via religious scriptures, the values in public and private schools try to instill in its students and child rearing methods used by parents. These work in conjunction with one’s heredity to create a balance between our genetic framework and our environment to influence ones behavior. “The diversity of our behavior has influenced psychologists from different perspectives to more thoroughly examine what makes an individual act the way he/she does. This search has been mostly expressed through an ongoing debate that has been around at least since the days of Ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle” (VanBuren).
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed that happiness requires virtue; hence a person who wanted to be happy needed “virtuous amounts of character.” Socrates identifies happiness with pleasure and exp...
... middle of paper ...
...stitute of Education Sciences (IES) Home Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education. 04 June 2007. Web. 20 Aug. 2011. .
Kessenich, Maureen, et al. "Developmental Theory." Encyclopedia of Education. Ed. James W. Guthrie. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2002. 561-577. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Aug. 2011.
"Moral Character (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 15 Jan. 2003. Web. 20 Aug. 2011. .
VanBuren, Joseph. "Nature VS. Nurture: Working Together Instead of Fighting | Socyberty." Socyberty | Society on the Web. 3 Jan. 2008. Web. 19 Aug. 2011. .
In the humdrum and mundane events of human life, the question is often wondered if certain abstract characteristics are given to individuals via nature or nurture. This notion has been the core of debates for centuries. The nature notion suggests that individuals are innately gifted with their talent. Adverse to nature is the idea that a person’s talents or skills are acquired through a knowledge that has been taught to them i.e. nurture. Like any debate, nature and nurture have their respective followers. Philosophical greats, such as Plato even offered his perspective on the nature vs nurture debacle. In his work, The Republic, Plato vicariously speaks his thoughts through his character Socrates. Socrates defends his view of justice against his friends Glaucon and Adeimantus. Socrates asserts that justice, in itself, is a naturally good and is desired. To defend his view of justice, Socrates must first construct what he believes to be a
Shafer-Landau, R. (2013) Ethical Theory: An Anthology (Second Edition). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
"Nature Plus Nurture." Read "" by Begley, Sharon. N.p., 13 Nov. 1995. Web. 08 Apr. 2014.
In today’s society, one is constantly surrounded by individuals with different behaviors. Some will sacrifice his or her life for a complete stranger. However, there is some individuals who would take advantage of the weak and poor for his or her own personal gain. Now the question arises, what makes human beings behave the way they do? Being the topic of conflict of psychology for years, one usually turns to the nature verses nurture theory for the answer to that question. Some believes that a person is born with a certain personality, others believe it is an individual’s atmosphere that determines his or her attitude, and some even trusts the idea that it is a combination of genes and environment that dictates the conduct of an individual.
Albert Camus once said, “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.” But what makes man what he is? Is it his sheer genetic makeup, or is it the way he was raised? The nature vs. nurture debate has raged on for centuries, but neither side has been able to prove their point indefinitely. Even today we see displays of the contrast between genetics and learned behaviors, some of which are athletics, intelligence, medical histories, etc. Every person is completely unique, a combination of genetic makeup and environment make an individual who they are.
nurture argument. Theorists have wondered how much of development is affected by genetics and the environment. Ultimately, nature and nurture intertwine to shape the lives of children. Nature may predispose children to certain behaviors if placed in specific environments, however the timing of the environmental exposure and the child’s natural tendencies also play a role. Theorists have also discussed the extent to which development is universal and how much of it is unique to individuals. There are consistencies that have been noted universally yet; theorists have observed variations in their competency in different tasks and way of life that may be contributed to genetics or the environment. Lastly, theorists debate about whether changes in development can be portrayed as qualitative where it involves dramatic changes or quantitative in which development is a steady progression. These debates have merits independently but require each other for a better understanding of child
Wade, N. (2007, September 18). Is ‘do unto others’ written into our genes? New York Times Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?sq&_r=0
Human nature is characteristics that generally apply to all people. It is our natural habits such as being impatient, wanting to be accepted, and so on. It is within human nature that peopl...
Notwithstanding the basics of developmental psychology, human development is known for the controversial debate on nature and nurture. Researchers have not distinguished
Nature versus nurture is an argument in psychology over whether a person’s innate qualities and behaviors are caused from their environment or if they’re born with it. Vygotsky places more emphasis on the social factors that contribute to cognitive development, in other words he is in favor of the nurture argument. He believes that everyone learns from their culture, environment, and social interactions. He talks about a few of his theories like the zone of proximal development, and a more knowledgeable other. He also expresses his thoughts on developmental tools and the importance of language to cognitive development. All of these factors together support his idea that children’s behavior is learned.
In conclusion reading these books from Plato, Freud and Tzu on nature versus nurture was very intriguing although it does leave one especially me pondering what life would be like if we lived on nature. But at the same time the reasons for wondering reasonably or realizing the reality of how it would be done is all because of nurture. Through nurture I’ve had time to rationalize and mature as one person.
In 1874, Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with him into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth”. The human body contains millions upon millions of cells and each of these cells contains hereditary information and DNA. However, there is no proof that the information carried in these genes predetermines the way in which we behave. I believe it is our life experiences and what we see and are told that shape the way in which we behave. Therefore, it appears to me that nurturing plays a far more governing and dominant role in a human being’s development rather than nature.
Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” and “which came first, the chicken or the egg”. Within the past 400 years a new question has surfaced which takes our minds to much further levels. The question asked is whether nature or nurture has more of an impact on the growing development of people. It is a fact that a combination of nature and nurture play important roles in how humans behave socially. However, I believe that nature has a more domineering role in the development of how people behave in society with regards to sexual orientation, crimes and violence and mental disorders.
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...