Sources · Human nature
This house believes people are good by nature.
Fact bank v1 · 12 cards
This is a philosophy motion, so the judge never rules either side's view true or false. These cards say what philosophers generally accept, and cover facts such as who argued what.
- GBN-01
“Children as young as 18 months help other people even when they get nothing for it.”
What philosophers generally accept
Confirmed: a study in the journal Science found that children as young as 18 months quite readily helped others do what they were trying to do, in lots of different situations.
The researchers say this takes two things: understanding what someone else is trying to do, and wanting to help. Three young chimpanzees helped too, but less reliably. A later study found that 20-month-olds who were given a prize for helping went on to help less than those who got praise or nothing, which suggests toddlers help because they want to. Sharing fairly comes later, though: in another study, the large majority of 3 to 4-year-olds acted selfishly, while most 7 to 8-year-olds chose to share equally.
“human children as young as 18 months of age (prelinguistic or just-linguistic) quite readily help others to achieve their goals”
Science (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees (Science)Government / parliament · 3 Mar 2006 ↗ - GBN-02
“Babies under a year old already prefer people who help others over people who get in the way.”
What philosophers generally accept
A famous 2007 study found this in 6 and 10-month-old babies, but a much bigger repeat of it did not. When 37 labs on five continents tested the same idea, only 49.34% of the babies picked the helper, which is no better than chance.
In the 2007 study, babies watched one character help another that was trying to climb a hill, while a different character got in its way. The babies tended to choose the helper. The big repeat tested 1,018 babies (567 of them counted in the results), aged 5.5 to 10.5 months. Its authors say the effect may be weaker than thought, may not exist, or may show up later in life. So this does not prove babies are born without a moral sense, but it is not strong proof that they have one either.
“This study provides evidence against infants' prosocial preferences in the hill paradigm”
Developmental Science (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Infants' Social Evaluation of Helpers and Hinderers: A Large-Scale, Multi-Lab, Coordinated Replication Study (Developmental Science)Government / parliament · 26 Nov 2024 ↗Further sources for this card
- GBN-03
“Our gut instinct is to cooperate; it is only when we stop and think that we turn selfish.”
What philosophers generally accept
The evidence is split. A big 2017 test that repeated a famous experiment 21 separate times found that making people decide fast did not make them more cooperative. Counting everyone, the difference was almost nothing (-0.37 percentage points), compared with 8.6 in the original study.
In the original 2012 study, people in an anonymous money game put more into a shared pot when they had to decide quickly than when they were made to wait. In the repeat, people who kept to the time limits did show a gap, but the authors think that came from which people managed to keep to the limits, not from speed. On the other side, a 2016 review of 67 studies with 17,647 people found 17.3% more cooperation when people were pushed to go with their gut, but only where helping could not pay off for them later. Where cooperating could pay off, there was no clear difference.
“consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation”
Perspectives on Psychological Science (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Registered Replication Report: Rand, Greene, and Nowak (2012) (Perspectives on Psychological Science)Government / parliament · 1 Mar 2017 ↗ - GBN-04
“The Stanford Prison Experiment proved that ordinary people turn cruel when they are given power over others.”
What philosophers generally accept
The study is too flawed to prove this. A 2019 review of its records, plus interviews with 15 of the people who took part, found that the guards were given precise instructions about how to treat the prisoners, and that the data was collected in a biased and incomplete way.
In the study, students were picked at random to be guards or prisoners in a pretend prison at Stanford, and it was stopped after just 6 days. Other experts point out that its leader, Zimbardo, told the guards things like 'You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree.' Even so, not all guards acted brutally. The review also found that the guards were not told they were being studied. Zimbardo and Haney, two of the people who ran it, still defend it. They say it shows the harm that can happen when one group gets nearly total power over others in a harsh place that treats people as less than human, like a prison. But because of its flaws, it tells us little about how people behave by nature.
“the guards received precise instructions regarding the treatment of the prisoners”
American Psychologist (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment (American Psychologist)Government / parliament · 5 Aug 2019 ↗Further sources for this card
- PLOS Biology · Contesting the "Nature" Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show ↗
- American Psychologist (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine) · Continuing to acknowledge the power of dehumanizing environments: Comment on Haslam et al. (2019) and Le Texier (2019) ↗
- GBN-05
“Milgram's experiments proved that most people will hurt someone just because they are ordered to.”
What philosophers generally accept
Only partly. In Milgram's best-known version, 65% of people went all the way to the top 450-volt shock. But across the 30 or so versions he ran, the share who went that far ranged from 0% to nearly 100%, and overall most people chose not to go that far.
The shocks were not real, but the volunteers did not know that. When the experimenter gave a direct order, such as 'You have no other choice, you must go on', people usually refused. Experts who studied the results say people kept going when they believed in the importance of what they were doing, not simply because they were told to. A 2006 repeat that stopped at 150 volts found people obeyed only slightly less than in Milgram's day.
“across the studies as a whole, a majority of participants chose not to go this far”
PLOS Biology·Contesting the "Nature" Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Really Show (PLOS Biology)Peer-reviewed research · 20 Nov 2012 ↗ - GBN-06
“If someone is attacked in public, bystanders usually just stand and watch.”
What philosophers generally accept
The largest study of real conflicts in public places caught on CCTV, in the UK, the Netherlands and South Africa, found that in 9 out of 10 cases at least one bystander, and usually several, did something to help.
The study looked at 219 public conflicts. The more people were around, the more likely it was that someone stepped in. Fifty years of research does show that each single person is less likely to act when others are there, which is called the bystander effect. But in a crowd, someone usually helps. The famous story that 38 witnesses watched the murder of Kitty Genovese and did nothing is not backed by the evidence, a 2007 study of the records found.
“in 9 of 10 public conflicts, at least 1 bystander, but typically several, will do something to help”
American Psychologist (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts (American Psychologist)Government / parliament · 3 Jun 2019 ↗ - GBN-07
“Put more cash in a lost wallet and fewer people will hand it back, because greed wins.”
What philosophers generally accept
The opposite happened. In experiments in 355 cities across 40 countries, using more than 17,000 'lost' wallets, people in almost every country were more likely to return wallets that had more money in them.
The researchers handed in wallets holding different amounts of money at public and private organisations, and checked whether the person who received them contacted the owner. Neither ordinary people nor professional economists predicted this result. The authors think it comes from caring about others and from not wanting to see yourself as a thief. Both of those feelings get stronger when there is more money at stake.
“In virtually all countries, citizens were more likely to return wallets that contained more money.”
Science (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·Civic honesty around the globe (Science)Government / parliament · 20 Jun 2019 ↗ - GBN-08
“Experiments around the world show people are generous by nature, whatever culture they grow up in.”
What philosophers generally accept
Partly true. Money-sharing games in 15 small-scale societies found that the idea that people only look after themselves failed in every one of them. But how generous people were changed a lot from group to group, depending on how their community lived and worked together.
The games, called the ultimatum, public goods and dictator games, let people choose how much money to keep or share. Groups that traded more in markets, and gained more from working together in daily life, were more generous in the games. A 2010 follow-up across 15 populations found that fairness in the games went up with how much of their food people bought in markets and, on some measures, with belonging to a world religion. Its authors say modern helpful behaviour is not only something we are born with, but also comes from rules and customs built up over history.
“the canonical model - based on self-interest - fails in all of the societies studied”
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·"Economic man" in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies (Behavioral and Brain Sciences)Government / parliament · 1 Dec 2005 ↗ - GBN-09
“Humans are born killers: deadly violence is built into our nature.”
What philosophers generally accept
Partly. A 2016 study in Nature used the mammal family tree to predict that about 2% of human deaths would be caused by other humans, which matches what is seen in prehistoric bands and tribes. But it also found that the level of deadly violence has changed through human history, along with how societies are organised.
The 2% figure is similar to the one predicted for the shared ancestor of primates and apes, so some violence seems to come with our place among mammals. Our two closest animal relatives differ, though: a study of 18 chimpanzee communities and 4 bonobo communities over five decades counted 152 known or likely killings by chimpanzees but only one suspected killing by bonobos. So evolution may explain some violence, but the way we live together matters too.
“The proportion of human deaths phylogenetically predicted to be caused by interpersonal violence stood at 2%.”
Nature (abstract via PubMed, US National Library of Medicine)·The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence (Nature)Government / parliament · 28 Sept 2016 ↗ - GBN-10
“Thomas Hobbes argued that people are selfish and wicked by nature.”
What philosophers generally accept
Partly. Hobbes did say that life without government would be 'solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short', and that people's kindness is limited. But experts now widely reject the old view that he thought people only ever act for themselves.
Hobbes, an English thinker from the 17th century, said people care about those close to them but tend to favour their own side. In his picture, trouble comes because people are roughly equal, badly want to stay alive, compete for scarce things and fear being attacked, with no shared authority to keep the peace. He did think a small number of proud people enjoy having power over others. So for Hobbes, conflict comes mainly from fear and competition when there are no rules, not from everyone simply being evil.
“The formerly dominant view that Hobbes espoused psychological egoism as the foundation of his moral theory is currently widely rejected”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Hobbes's Moral and Political PhilosophyPeer-reviewed research · 12 Sept 2022 ↗ - GBN-11
“Rousseau argued that people are good by nature and it is society that corrupts them.”
What philosophers generally accept
Mostly right, but his 'good' is not the everyday meaning. Rousseau said again and again that people are good by nature but are made corrupt by society. Yet he also said that morality is not a natural part of human life, so he did not simply mean that people are born morally good.
Rousseau said that besides wanting to look after ourselves, people feel pity, which pushes us to ease the suffering of others when it does not put us in danger. He blamed much of the trouble on a kind of pride that grows when people live together: wanting others to see us as better than them. He thought this pride usually turns harmful, but that good upbringing and well-run societies could tame it. He did not want people to go back to living in the wild, and said that is not possible once people are civilised.
“In various places Rousseau clearly states that morality is not a natural feature of human life”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·Jean Jacques RousseauPeer-reviewed research · 21 Apr 2023 ↗Further sources for this card
- GBN-12
“The Chinese thinker Mencius showed that people are naturally good, so they don't need to be taught.”
What philosophers generally accept
Mencius did say human nature is good, but he meant we are born with 'sprouts' of goodness that have to be grown, like young plants. He said most people need three things for that: their basic needs met, moral education, and their own effort.
Mencius gave a famous example: anyone who suddenly saw a child about to fall into a well would feel alarm and compassion, and not because they wanted to win favour or fame. His rival Xunzi wrote that human nature is bad and that goodness comes from effort and training. But experts say the two actually agreed that everyone can become good, while some people develop that ability and others do not. The main differences were that they used the word 'nature' in different ways, and that Xunzi's advice on how to become good was more complex.
“Mencius compares our innate but incipient dispositions toward virtue to the sprouts of plants, which must be cultivated in order to reach maturity”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy·MenciusPeer-reviewed research · 27 Sept 2024 ↗Further sources for this card
The judge is an AI model. It can only rule on claims these cards cover. Everything else stays unverified, and it never rules on opinions. See every motion's cards.