"Babies are born bad"

There seem to be two schools of thought in this world about ourselves.

One theory goes like this: People are born bad. Babies are badness. As such, they must be beaten and controlled and trained to be good. "Spare the rod, spoil the child." I cannot think of a more reprehensible, offensive, nasty -- evil -- view of the world. If there's a devil, this is how the devil would think.

Then there is the other view: People are born innocent. Babies are good. As they are exposed to this world, they are exposed to badness. Given their innate strengths and weaknesses, some are tempted by it, even beyond the age when they know better. Given this, it makes sense to me that it's only good to nurture the child, giving love.

Some thoughts on this, offered here on this Easter Sunday, after the jump.

Personally I cannot fathom the "babies born bad" view of the world. It certainly goes against all my experience. Babies are bundles of love and trust. They have to be taught pettiness and abusiveness. They have to be taught envy and pride. I don't see how beating the child does anything but improve this teaching. Children need to be taught hate -- and they are. Hate the Jews. Hate the gays. Hate the Yanks. Hate the French. Hate the Arabs. Hate hate hate.

Now the "babies born bad" people are running our government. And their attitudes about the nature of life are showing up in their legislation. "We the People" are now considered inherently bad. "We the People" are not to be trusted. "We the People" are one step from "evil incarnate" -- and unless the "babies born bad" folks take steps to keep "We the People" in line, well, all hell will break loose -- literally.

This strikes me as patently un-American. Who are these "babies born bad" people to claim authority over all of our lives? Did our ancestors, our Founding Fathers, fight and die for Freedom just to have a bunch of self-appointed evil-seers take the place of the King?

What is really telling to those of us who went to Sunday school is how these "babies born bad" folks seem to live lives in diametric opposition to the teachings of Jesus, whom they claim to worship. The Jesus I studied taught of love and peace. The Jesus I studied taught of compassion and giving. The Jesus I studied taught of acceptance of others.

Later, when I became acquainted with other faiths around the world, I saw how Jesus' teachings were so much like Buddha's and so many others. It's a global faith in love and peace.

How did we end up here? There is so much beauty and wonder in the world. Nature is magnificent in its richness and mystery. It is our cradle. And there is so much beauty and wonder in our own creations. Look at the marvels of our civilizations. Our cities, our great public works, our architecture, our institutions for caring for the people in need.

And yet we fall so short. This is our failing. Starvation, epidemics, wars, poverty -- these are our failings.

So what are we to do? Get out the rod and beat on these people? Beat on the poor to get them in line? Beat on the ill to get them in line? Beat on the elderly to get them in line? That seems to be the approach of those "people born bad" folks leading our government. And it's all an extension of this basic notion they've learned to embrace: People are born bad!

What an awful way to view ourselves. What an awful way to try to run the world.

Shouldn't "We the People" do better? Doesn't the world deserve better?

•  Nature and Nurture

  There is no question that some basic temperment is determined by birth, probably by genetics. There also no question that the environment after birth affects a person. The degree of each is debatable, but both certainly contribute.

  My personal theory (based on reading several studies and from personal experience and observation) is that genetics determine alot of what we are, more than we realize or wish to admit sometimes. But dramatic events in our lives can alter aspects of our personality. It is much harder to "choose" to change our basic genetic personality, but some people do it, often in repsonse to dramatic life events. Of course with day to day actions we make many choices, but our basic personalities are shaped early.

  by mole333 on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 08:46:38 AM PDT

•  Well, speaking for my boys,

  I don't think they were born bad, but they weren't born "good" either, that is they are more than comfortable (initially, until they learn different) stealing (toys), hitting (each other, the cat, whatever) and yes, even lying ("did you step on the CD?" "No" "What's that under your foot?" "I didn't do it.") So I would say that each child in my experience is basically neutral, or actually selfish (although not necessarily at the expense of sympathy); that is they are born with instincts to provide for their own happiness, and I believe they have learned over time that being good and nice are more rewarding (emotionally as well as physically) than being bad, mean or covetous. My kids love to share and be friendly, but if you throw only ONE Buzz Lightyear toy into a group of about 10 four year-olds, I'd bet you'll see some behavior that would make the Roman Gladiators look like church ladies.

  by PBJ Diddy on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 08:54:28 AM PDT

  •  Were they born selfish

    Or did they learn selfishness after learning of self?

    by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:04:32 AM PDT

    •  I think they were selfish before

      they knew self...there's nothing wrong with being selfish, it's how we survive (you could substitute "survival instinct" in the context I mean it) the "bad" behavior comes in when the selfishness outweighs social politeness -- I mean, it's pretty obvious that it's easier to teach a child to want something than not to, I'd have to say that's no blank slate.

      by PBJ Diddy on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:38:26 AM PDT

      •  Can you be self-ish without self?

        Clearly kids are different, and placed in similar environments each will react differently. But I do not believe that some babies are inherently evil. Some may be more predisposed to reacting with fear. Some may be more predisposed to responding physically more than verbally. But they're responding to the world. And ultimately they're learning cause and effect.

        To me, selfishness is learned. Hmmm, I picked up this toy and now I can play with it. The greater frame of cooperation etc. then also must be learned.

        But it seems that people want to learn these things. People want to cooperate. People want to build a collective and create and help each other and make the world a little better and easier. Some of that comes from selfishness, sure. But I think there's more to it than "oh life is nasty, brutish and short, so I'm gonna join a gang" -- the selfish motivation of cooperation.

        Just a different view.

        by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:04:27 AM PDT

        •  There are schools of thought

          that say that ALL human action is motivated by positive self desire; that is that any action you, I or even Mother Theresa (RIP) takes is driven by the desire to progress the actor's life, happiness or interests. In this context, even helping others is done to bring joy to the heart of the helper (after all, Mother Theresa herself said she had no interest in eliminating poverty, only helping the poor); I don't believe this is cynical, in fact I think it's a necessary antidote to the concept of the ego; truly, one cannot be selfless unless one desires to be so, and that desire is in itself selfish.

          As for kids, I think they learn from the inside out, and start life thinking (naturally) only about thesemlves, if they feel for their mommy or their daddy or their kitty, it is in the context of how that person/animal fits in the frame of their existence (My kitty died, I miss my kitty, I'm sad.) And for the most part we remain that way at our core. One need only look at any funeral to see that the emotions generally on display are not sorrow for the deceased but sorrow for OUR own loss. I don't actually think humans are capable of true self-less-ness so long as they are conscious of their own existence; some decisions however appear to be more or less selfish -- I may return the wallet I find although I need the money, but maybe my inner motivation to avoid guilt is stronger than my need for a quick money fix, appearance isn't everything...  :)

          by PBJ Diddy on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 03:07:46 PM PDT

    •  This is a question for Jean Piaget

       who tracked human development over the aging process and said there are certain stages that children grow out of as they mature and relate to the world around them.

      by Lunch Lady on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:20:45 AM PDT

  •  I have no illusions that every single one

    of us can descend into the war of all against all in extreme circumstances. An individual who does not do that could not survive. When the scarcity is alleviated, many people start to act better. Their sense of threat drops. But there are some who continue to be aggressive, very competitive, and predatory in varying degrees.

    by lecsmith on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:44:29 AM PDT

•  If one goes by the historical record

  Than human beings are, on the whole, a bunch o'bastards.  Progressives are in particular eager to condemn ages of religious dominance, but fail to note that the twentieth century was, for almost the entire planet, a carnival of state-dominated genocide and horror - a nonstop charnel house from Armenia to Bosnia-Herzegovinia, with exciting side stops in Cambodia, Laos and the entirety of South America.  

  And it's hardwired into us; certain forms of wasps breed by paralyzing other creatures and then laying  their eggs in the still living flesh.  Apes commit genocide, dolphins rape, the entire life cycle of mice is predicated on mass starvation, cannibalism, and frantic reproduction.  
  Babies are greedy bastards - the crying you hear is rage that you're not serving them.  We start out greedy.

  So whether you want to call it the fall or the consequence of natural selection is irrelevant.  Our basic nature is unpleasant - we are born to be cruel to each other, economically and biologically wired to enslave each other.  Our major difference is that we can look at that state of affairs and say "no".

  It's kind of appropriate to mention this on a holiday dedicated to, in Douglas Adams' words "a man getting nailed to a tree for saying how much better it would be if everyone were nice to each other".  We don't have to abide by our baser natures - we can opt for self-control, compassion and mercy.  We can opt to be just; one of the great advantages of having an intellect is that we don't have to play the zero-sum game of our instincts.  It's just a constant struggle against forces that would rather keep us as beasts, whether they do so with paychecks or pistols.

  by astralagos on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 08:54:55 AM PDT

  •  I would believe this

    But then I'd have to wonder that we're alive at all. I see so much good outweighing the bad. Yes, we're getting better at empowering the destructive and murderous impulses so that one person could, in theory, at least, destroy all life on this planet.

    But looking at the collective effort, looking at what the balance of people are doing, I see goodness. I don't think the major and minor marvels of our civilizations would have happened without this.

    I also submit that the bulk of horrors of the 20th century are a result of that "people are inherently bad" thinking. Thus, kill the Jews, kill the homosexuals, kill the Armenians, kill the Bosnians, kill the peasants, kill the intellectuals -- "They don't deserve to live."

    That's not progressive thinking at all. Not my brand of progressive thinking, anyway.

    by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:08:29 AM PDT

    •  Never underestimate the power of failed idealism

      Hitler believed that he was killing jews out of love - that by eliminating them he would restore Aryans to their pristine state.  Pol Pot thought that by eliminating the corrupting influence of foreign intellectuals, he would be able to restore Cambodia to a pristine agrarian society - that's explicitly why it was called Year Zero.  They killed people because they thought their people were inherently good, and all they had to do was remove the corrupting influence.  

      I see goodness as well, but I see it as an aberration - one that we want to promote.  But pretending that the human race is inherently good flies in the face of history and biology.  It's the conservative argument that yesterday was better because we were closer to our natural selves.

      by astralagos on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:33:48 AM PDT

      •  I agree to disagree

        "pretending that the human race is inherently good flies in the face of history and biology"

        I submit that this expression is as much an expression of faith as the "pretending" it decries.

        I'm sorry, but I don't see love in genocide. That's much more than failed ideology -- that's imperialism justified by a claim on "moral authority." He felt he knew better, and set out to impose his will on millions of others.

        It goes back to this idea that people must be corrected. It's the heart of current conservative ideology. They've appointed themselves as judge, jury and executioner.

        I think victimizing others is not failed goodness, it's bad (or "evil," if you will). Same with murder.

        Just a different take that, I'm sorry, I do not see as "flying in the face" of history or biology.

        by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:53:41 AM PDT

        •  I don't see love in genocide either

          But the fact of the matter is that their basic theory of history was that human beings were inherently good, and that it was the influence of non-people that caused it to go downhill.  Ergo, by eliminating the non-people, you can restore everything to its proper state, as it was in the past.

          We see the same thing everytime anyone calls for a purge here - there's a pure community of believers, and things would be better if the first thing we did was get rid of all the nonbelievers.  

          I tend to take the Buddhist approach on this - the human race is united by suffering.  Everything after that is trivia.  

          by astralagos on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:10:18 AM PDT

          •  I'm more of a Buddhist myself

            But I don't see humans as united by suffering. In fact, to embrace that view I believe is against the Dharma. But then, I could be wrong.

            I guess I'm just not explaining myself very well.

            by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:40:04 AM PDT

            •  Not really

              The first of the four noble truths: Life Is Suffering.  Mind you, if I'm going to take my Buddhism, I tend to take it strictly Theravada.

              by astralagos on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 12:52:59 PM PDT

•  Other

  Baby humans are just creatures like all others.  They are neither bad nor good.  Nature is amoral.  

  by Sue in NH on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 08:57:47 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    Babies are born innocent, not good.

    by martianchronic on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

•  Other

  Babies are a blank canvas.  Whatever they become in terms of "good" or "bad" is what was painted upon them by their parents and the other people around them in their formative years.

  by Loquatrix on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:01:33 AM PDT

  •  that's what I used to think.

    Then I had two kids.

    Let me give an example, although it's not about good or bad behavior... it does have to do with what seems to be the primary concern of parents of babies: sleep.

    Day 2 of my first child's life: The baby books say she should be sleeping around 18 hours a day.  She is sleeping only 12 hours a day.  (She still has problems sleeping at age 4 and never sleeps through the night.)

    Day 2 of my second child's life: He is sleeping 23 hours a day and I keep asking my mom if this qualifies as "lethargic" and should we call the doctor?  (He slept through the night at 1 month of age.)

    Parenting books are chock full of advice on what to do to get your baby sleeping properly-- they call this, I kid you not, "sleep hygiene."

    And here I have two kids that are on opposite ends of the spectrum and it has absolutely nothing to do with any action on my part.

    Personally, I think environmental factors are totally over-emphasized, because parenting has become a major industry, and how can you sell books, videos, toys, and gadgets if you don't convince parents that their children are nothing but a product of their parenting?
    

    by vinifera on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:43:27 AM PDT

•  There is of course another theory...

  The Tabula Rosa (or blank slate) theory of developmental psychology states that a child is born neither good nor evil but instead is influenced by his/her environment and is raised to be one or the other.

  It's a long standing theory that was quite revolutionary for it's time but I don't think is commonly accepted on it's face.  There is so much more to a person than their environment.  I believe you have to take things individually.  A child may be born with certain tendencies.  Tendencies to being unhappy, restless, even violent.  On the other hand there are some children who seem born with dendencies for contentment, passivity, or happiness.  

  I wonder if perhaps our personality can be like our eyesight.  Yes we may be born with a tendency to be nearsighted or farsighted but those condidtions can corrected.  I'm not saying we should drug bad children, in fact I don't think we should ever drug children.  Children are so maliable when they're young that we should tailor child rearing techniques to a specific child's needs.  But to do that we first need to identify what chemical, biological, or genetic situations cause undesirable traits in a child to be reinforced into adulthood.     Punishment and voilence should never enter into it unless you WANT to raise a violent, angry adult (and sadly there are some very hateful people who prize that kind of thing in adults).

  by DawnG on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:16:52 AM PDT

  •  I think that you are right

    but I'd adjust tubula rasa slightly.

    People are born hard-wired to survive, and to try to survive as comfortably as possible. Neither good nor bad, just existing.

    "Good" or "Evil" require intent, and one can't have intent until one has a distinct self, which IIRC, according to much of the research, doesn't develop until they're around two or three. Genetically, a child's base temperment may tend them towards disregarding other's needs, which could lead to "evil" behavior, but I don't think it is ALL children.

    by Madman in the marketplace on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:33:48 AM PDT

  •  Skinner took this to the nth degree

    I'm not saying you're advocating a "Walden Two" approach to civilization. In fact, I agree with all you say -- especially the pat about "Punishment and voilence should never enter into it unless you WANT to raise a violent, angry adult."

    My biggest beef in my diary was with the "babies are born to sin" kind of thinking, which places the judges into some sort of superior position over everyone else, morally.
    

    by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:02:11 AM PDT

•  Humans...

  mammalian and weak as children...when they start to grow (and quickly) their brains develop and start to assert themselves on their environment.

  Upon starting to use tools...they become the dominant predator species on the planet.

  Using their creative minds to refine their tools...become dangerous to each other.

  Only through responsible intervention and repeated crafting of the mind can humans take what would be a destructive force and put it to productive use.

  Bad part of this bargain is that productivity begat profit and greed. And then the productive force is transmuted back into the destructive force to acquire and dominate.

  This is the nature of man.

  by rgilly on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:34:15 AM PDT

•  YASFCP

  Yet Another Self-Fulfilling Conservative Prophecy.

  Babies are bad, so we have to beat them. And when they grow up to be maladjusted and cruel and petty... Well, obviously, we were right and we just didn't beat them hard enough! The idea that perhaps the beating influenced the later behavior never seems to enter their little pea brains...

  by RHunter on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:52:55 AM PDT

•  Think of yourself as a male

  whose grown accustomed to the services and undivided attention of a female.  Then, out of the blue (this is before biology classes) she produces a small intruder who takes up much of her attention and manages to annoy you with its crying.  Naturally, your perception of this intruder is that it's BAD.
  However, since the female, who seems to be particularly attached to this creature she produced, is not likely to respond well to its being abused or destroyed, the smart male will come up with a compromise.  The small critter can stay and the male may even provide some support, IF the critter learns to do what it's told.  In other words, the survival of the human depends on the capacity to learn obedience.
  From the perspective of the small human, however, things are a bit different.  Survival depends not only on being able to cummunicate needs and discomforts, but in persuading other humans to satisfy those needs.  In a not particularly supportive environment, the humans that are most likely to survive are those that can communicate and manipulate.
  Now, adult humans may well resent being manipulated to provide services to such a small being, but natural selection doesn't give a fig.  What works gets transmitted in the genes and what doesn't falls by the wayside.

  Of course, when adult humans come to percieve some extrinsic value in producing more of their own kind, successful reproduction depends on other factors.  Any number of individuals who are lacking in both communicative and manipulative skills may survive.  Or, the genes for those characteristics may just not be expressed. LOL

  by hannah on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 09:58:50 AM PDT

•  Neither, but...

  I always liked the approach of Xunzi (third century BCE), who held that people were born morally neutral, but full of desire. Desire in itself is not necessarily evil, but it leads to conflict between people for limited resources, which generates evil. Thus, people have a natural tendency to become evil unless educated in restraining their desires and taking proper account of the rights of others.

  Of course, his idea of the proper education to restrain human desires was very much marked by the assumptions of his times, but there's no reason why it couldn't be recast in a more modern form.

  by sagesource on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:00:38 AM PDT

  •  That's very interesting

    It seems to be related to a lot of Buddhist thought.

    Of course, in a twisted way it leads to some of the worst behaviors in patriarchal cultures -- like treating women like property to be bagged and owned and contained, and oppressing half the population so men can control their sexual desire.

    It's a very interesting analysis. I'd like to learn more.

    by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:09:30 AM PDT

•  Such an interesting subject

  My comments are somewhat repetitive, so if someone has read this before, I apologize.

  My mother believes in the idea of "the bad seed." There was a movie by this name in the 50s? with Deborah Kerr. She was caring for a young girl who was a sociopath.

  I think there are a few individuals who turn out to be genuine, thoroughgoing sociopaths. There is also a fair amount of milder sociopathy in the population as a whole. A very mild amount actually contributes to one's resiliance, the ability to get through traumatic events and continue on.

  I started university in 1971. At that time the nature/nurture debate was raging hot. Academia, being very liberal/left (which was fine with me) was pro-nurture. To argue that peoples' abilities and disabilities were all due to biology seemed, quite frankly, a justification of racism and sexism.

  In the late 80s I did graduate work in psychology. I said this on another comment weeks ago, but by that time they were posing a more sophisticated model of human development called the "diathesis/stress" model. "Diathesis" means "tendency." This model was way more satisfying because it accounted for a complex interaction between environment and biology. Accordingly, a person who was biologically predisposed to have something like moderate to mild depression (dysthymia) might be able to minimize it behaviorially and cognitively if they were brought up in a very supportive, on the ball family or environment where they could learn how to handle it. On the other hand, a disorder like schizophrenia, which emerges frequently in the late teens, has to be treated more aggressively and it is much harder to manage. A good family environment can have a mitigating effect but there is no substitution for treatment and management (and even then, depending on the type of schizophrenia, the treatment might not be that helpful).

  When studying psychology I also learned about the high prevalance of different degrees of anxiety disorders. For instance, much of the population has small animal phobias, like mice and rats (I myself am one of those people who gets on a chair when I see them). There is also a fair proportion of the population who strongly dislike either snakes or spiders (not necessarily both). Many people have fear of heights, bridges, enclosed spaces in varying degrees.

  There also seems to be a fairly consistent distribution of traits like aggressiveness and predatoriness.

  I can't help but think that all of these biological traits are part of our arsenal of survival mechanisms. They are not expressed in perfect amounts in many of us. We live with a lot of these things and they are restrained or brought out by the culture we live in. If we are not poor or going through major traumatic events continuously, we can usually manage them.(The last time I saw a rat was in Kendall Square while walking to the T from Fenway Park one evening--there was a lot of construction going on. I kept my distance.)

  I also think there is plenty of evidence that human beings are capable of very beautiful, altruistic, life-affirming gestures. The firemen and policemen who rushed selflessly into the towers to try to save people are the most obvious examples I can think of (in contrast to our cowardly leaders who avoided Washington DC and NYC like the plague).

  While there are some socipaths out there, most people want to live happy, decent lives where they can enjoy their families and friends, their work, and their leisure time.

  by lecsmith on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:08:42 AM PDT

•  Isn't this the Dobson theory?

  It's just a convenient theory to keep producing the same kind of maladjusted, unhappy, selfish, authoritarian, violent assholes that vote Republican.

  I truly think, absent strong stimulus in the womb, or birth defects, that most babies are born with neutral morality. They watch you, watch the amount of love you show to them and to your fellow human beings. They watch how generous and kind you are, or how selfish and mean you are - then they emulate it. I also think a lot of the problems with children these days can be traced back to a few things we are doing wrong that prehistoric humans did right - they coslept with their children, instead of putting them in another room. They held and nursed their children when they cried, we have a "cry it out" theory. They nursed for years, we tend to nurse for months. And, lastly, though children may have been felled by many diseases because of it, they did not have their immune system polluted with way too many vaccines all at once, nor did they have the mercury poison that until the last year or so was in so many vaccines. All of these differences add up to unhappy babies - which the right now uses to justify authoritarian measures to try to fix. I've known preacher's kids who were subject to this kind of discipline, and, let me tell you with massive understatement, it didn't work. You can't force a child to be good, you can only convince them by example and with love. OK, enough soapboxing. :)

  by Homer Sampson on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:14:06 AM PDT

  •  I confess

    ...I drew this frame from George Lakoff's framing of Dobson.

    by media girl on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

  •  thank you for this comment...

    As a co-sleeping, long-term breastfeeding, non-vaccinating (and let me add non-circumcising) mom who never lets her children cry it out and thinks spanking is child abuse, it's so good to read your comment!

    There is a great book called "Our Babies, Ourselves" about different parenting styles and beliefs around the world.  Americans, to say the least, do not treat their children very well.  Our children have far less human contact than babies in other cultures, our babies cry a hell of a lot more than in non-developed countries, etc.  

    Too many Americans believe that the best parenting comes from smart product purchases, or worse, from forcing babies and children into submission.

    by vinifera on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 11:41:50 AM PDT

•  that is where i parted ways

  with the church, and this was back in sunday school...

  when they told me that i was born with sin, i thought to myself, hey, that's a pretty presumptuous statement (tho i didn't use those big words back then).

  i felt indignation that the church would be so self-righteous as to assume i was bad just by being born, and needed to change my ways.

  i said bye bye church.

  by skippy on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:31:51 AM PDT

•  You're right

  A much overlooked tenet of the uber right-wingers.  When super nutjob Rep. Mark Souder (who was one of the two Congressmen who actually voted for funding of extraordinary rendition) made a statement about why democracy would never work in Iraq, this is what he said:

  The United States was at its founding, and still is, not only a religious nation but largely a Christian nation. Through Judeo-Christian beliefs that anchor our legal, our economic, our military, and our political system, the balance of powers and constraints upon the state -- and thus upon the majority -- assume the sinful nature of man and one that is not perfectable.

  (emphasis mine)

  Crazy, crazy fuckers.

  by firedoglake on Sun Mar 27, 2005 at 10:33:21 AM PDT