4 ms·
Whenever I read something like this, I wonder if the author ever had children, or even knows anyone with children. I have two. Children ages 2 and 3 are a stron
by baryphonic 6y ago
Whenever I read something like this, I wonder if the author ever had children, or even knows anyone with children. I have two. Children ages 2 and 3 are a strong counter-example to this "inmate human goodness" hypothesis and Rousseau's thinking in general. My kids at that age would often be about to trip over the last nerve with some sort of interruption only to say, "Mommy and daddy, I love you." In some ways, I think the goodness that kids these ages show must be some sort of evolutionary mechanism to remain "cute" and keep the parents from harming them (i.e. self-interested). Thomas Sowell (whose work I submit is likely far superior to either Bregman's or the Lancet reviewer Marmot's) has a wonderful quote illustrating it: "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late."
Bergman appears to be arguing against a straw man. I don't think anyone would say that human beings are completely, innately and irredeemably evil. I doubt even John Calvin would have argued such a thing. People want to be loved and they want to feel they are doing good. But we are good at lying to ourselves about our motivations, letting our emotions lead us into bad decisions and generally reacting in ways that preserve our own interests, status and livelihoods regardless of the cost (which we are adept at rationalizing away).
Rousseau's "unconstrained vision"[1] has a fundamental error: if humans are good, then human-created institutions should by and large also be good; if humans are good and human-created institutions are for whatever reason corrupting, then humans should be resilient to the corruption. I'd argue that neither seems to be true, but the latter seems particularly false and fatal for the unconstrained vision. The existence of even a few unchecked malevolent attributes is sufficient to create mass suffering. This is doubly true if the person believes herself to be innately good in all ways.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688079512 https://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/068...
- kazagistar 6y agoHumans innately have object persistence too, but you wouldn't be able to tell from interacting with a baby as it takes them a few years to get there. Saying kids don't behave as nice as adults doesn't really mean anything in a similar way.
- abellerose 6y agoI think it really depends on the child whether inherently good or bad from the start. Basically genetics allowing either outcome.
- munificent 6y ago> Children ages 2 and 3 are a strong counter-example to this "inmate human goodness" hypothesis and Rousseau's thinking in general. Children younger than that are strong counter-examples to claims that humans are bipedal and have sophisticated verbal skills. I think there is a more, useful understanding of "innate" that doesn't literally mean "from the moment of birth" but more means "absent other sufficiently strong influences, a fully developed human will evidence this trait". I agree that toddlers are miniature terrorists. It's a good thing their little bodies develop as slowly as their brains and moral compass, to mitigate the damage they can cause.
- vermilingua 6y agoThe trick isn’t in the meaning of the word “innate”, but in your definition of child and human. Children are not fully human at birth, their brains are entirely undeveloped; so it’s perfectly valid to say humans have innate goodness, and children do not, because they are not yet entirely human.
- thursday0987 6y agosorry, but no. children are 100% human.