Nature vs. Nurture. I choose nither.

[austrianfoster]

I think that in the classic dispute of nature vs. nurture, niether one is correct. I think that anyone who claims that they are who they are because of genetic predisposition, or their "environment," is just trying to shed accountability for having become who they are. I think that people have a far greater influence over how this world affects them than anyone thinks. But, of cource no one wants to admit it, because then we'd actually have to take responsibility for what we become.

austrianfoster

 

[michabo]

What alternatives do you propose? Free will?

 

[mikenet2006]

I think that in the classic dispute of nature vs. nurture, niether one is correct. I think that anyone who claims that they are who they are because of genetic predisposition, or their "environment," is just trying to shed accountability for having become who they are. I think that people have a far greater influence over how this world affects them than anyone thinks. But, of cource no one wants to admit it, because then we'd actually have to take responsibility for what we become.

austrianfoster

You claimed it would be wrong to say that we are a result of our surroundings or our genetics when it is a combination of the two that really crafts a human being. Genetics determine your capacity for learning, it determines what diseases you will be prone to as you grow old, it determines your appearance, among many other things.

However if you take a person and raise them in a lab with little or no contact with people or experiences. Then your mind, being kind of a sponge of sorts, has nothing to absorb and your full potential is never reached.

Now if you want to talk about accountability thats another story. People tend to look at this as either black or white. In other words we are 100% accountable for our actions or we are not accountable in the least. I have a mid-ground opinion on this. We are to some degree accountable for who we become and how far we go.

For example if you grow up around crime, and your in a bad neighborhood you have the ability to say hey I'm moving somewhere where the air is fresh and the people are friendly. This would in turn change your external stimulus and possibly change the outcome of your life.

however you cant hold someone accountable in the afterlife for being overwhelmed here on earth and failing to make decisions that can make your life here better.

Here you have 6 billion people making difficult life decisions on a daily bases and everyone supposed to get it right? If I were God I would say let us make the best or worst of what we are given as mortals. That is after all what free will is all about, but to hold us accountable in the long term is not in anyway just and fair "Two words used in the bible to describe God".

Lets look at this as if you had committed a crime on earth and your appearing before a judge.

Ok, you stand before the court today, my friend, as a criminal. You lived a weak and meaningless life. You helped yourself before others, and you stoled from others to make your life easier. You stand before the court today as a 55 year old sinner, therefore we sentence you to either 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
years of torture, or eternal death. Talk about unbalanced

That number up there is supposed to represent infinity, but the word infinity doesn't stick out as much as all those prominent zeros everywhere. I think you get the idea. Neither eternity in hell or eternal death is justice for mistakes made as a mortal.

We are partially accountable for how happy we are here on earth but thats as far as it goes.

 

[austrianfoster]

Free will is an entirely separate idea from what I'm proposing. While I don't believe that we actually have any power over the specific choices made, I do believe that we have power over the trends in the way we make our decisions. Given how loaded that sentence was, allow me to elaborate. First, I think that individual decisions are made by whatever forces are currently relevant when you make the decision. I.e., if you just got a ticket, you don't speed. Second, I believe that we can "pick" the trends of the decisions we make. If we decide to express a certain trait or characteristic, we can tack it on to all of the little decisions we make, thus in a round about we "choosing" who we are. It's in the belief that we can choose to express such traits that I give greater credit to humanity than is usually given. I refuse the idea that I must be mean to my kids because my dad was mean to me. He made his choices, and I must make mine as well. I believe that I, and every other human, is capable of choosing the traits that they express. As such, neither nature nor nurture can be accredited for making us who we are.

austrianfoster

 

[TeddyKGB]

I believe that I, and every other human, is capable of choosing the traits that they express. As such, neither nature nor nurture can be accredited for making us who we are.

Why would I choose to express one trait but not another?

 

[Received]

Freedom, if it exists, is a qualification of consciousness; that which is before consciousness is therefore before freedom. Thus determination, thus facticity. Thus nature and nurture -- the synthesis, not a gaping either/or consideration. The psychologists consider this -- nature vs. nurture -- a problem because in being psychologists they are also terrible dialecticians.

 

[Gracchus]

Nature and nurture both influence behavior. Free will is problematic. My philosophy professor refused to discuss free will. He said it gave him a headache. In any case, whether a person is responsible for his actions is irrelevant. The law should concern itself only with who did it, and how to deal with the one who did it.

I remember from psychology that punishment is an effective deterrent only when it is immediate and certain. Vengeance is supposedly reserved to God.

KJV Genesis 4:15

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Well, that is only one case.

KJV Deuteronomy 32:35

To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

That seems clear enough.

KJV Psalm 94:1

O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself.

I sense a trend.

In any case we do not need to blame the transgressors to deal with them. In my experience, blame is just an excuse for cruelty.

 

[michabo]

I am trying to chose to have blue eyes. Can anyone help me out, it doesn't seem to be working.

 

[austrianfoster]

not a physical trait, a personality one. i was unclear... this idea applies only to traits or charachteristics related to human interaction. this does not include talking to yourself or your efforts to have blue eyes.

 

[PromoterGene]

You can't have nurture without nature. It's not a matter of one or the other or neither, it's both. Your genes are needed for behavior, but what activates those genes is the environment. Behavior cannot exist without the genes, but they cannot be expressed without the environment. They work together.

 

[michabo]

Specifically which aspects of our personalities?

MBTI, sex drives/orientation, views on marriage, what? There are many things in our genes which demonstrably affect our personalities, there are many things which are cultural. You may make an argument that we can resist these pressures, but that just acknowledges that the forces are present, seemingly defeating your argument.

 

[TeddyKGB]

not a physical trait, a personality one. i was unclear... this idea applies only to traits or charachteristics related to human interaction. this does not include talking to yourself or your efforts to have blue eyes.

An example would be helpful.

 

[Verv]

I think that in the classic dispute of nature vs. nurture, niether one is correct. I think that anyone who claims that they are who they are because of genetic predisposition, or their "environment," is just trying to shed accountability for having become who they are. I think that people have a far greater influence over how this world affects them than anyone thinks. But, of cource no one wants to admit it, because then we'd actually have to take responsibility for what we become.

austrianfoster

I like your point.

I contend that it is somewhere inbetween, and that there are factors that do effect us and to certain degrees shed us of responsibility.

e.g.: A person born in Romania cannot be held accountable for not speaking English well enough, and a person born into south Sudan cannot be held accountable for being illiterate since he may have had no opportunities to go to school.

Our environment and are genes do effect us (e.g., people who are born with diseases)...

But it is the duty of all of us to do our best no matter. Excuses in life should not pan out; we need to live and fulfill what we desire, and legitimate excuses do not matter.

It does not matter your condition or your status in life, if you look at things positively and worship God, you have succeeded; make your efforts and maintain a positive attitude is the most important thing towards ourselves, and more important than environment or genes.

 

[elman]

I am trying to chose to have blue eyes. Can anyone help me out, it doesn't seem to be working.

Being unable to chose the color of your eyes has no relavance to being able to be kind or unkind to people.

 

[michabo]

Being unable to chose the color of your eyes has no relavance to being able to be kind or unkind to people.

So? Did you even read the OP?

 

[Gracchus]

I contend that it is somewhere inbetween, and that there are factors that do effect us and to certain degrees shed us of responsibility.

Can you demonstrate that our actions are not completely determined by genes and environment? I submit that only God can know.

Our environment and are genes do effect us (e.g., people who are born with diseases)...

Do you suppose there are also genes or environmental factors that predispose us to arrogance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness?

But it is the duty of all of us to do our best no matter.

But is it our duty to determine if others did their best? Isn't that God's bailiwick? Should we intrude?

 

[elman]

So? Did you even read the OP?

Yes and I agree with it. I don't see my inability to change my eye color having anything to do with the OP.

 

[michabo]

Yes and I agree with it. I don't see my inability to change my eye color having anything to do with the OP.

It clearly demonstrates that our choices cannot influence factors which are determined by our genes. No matter how much we may wish for it to be different.

 

[Verv]

Can you demonstrate that our actions are not completely determined by genes and environment? I submit that only God can know.

No, but I have heard examples concerning either position that are quite persuasive and sometimes undeniable that there are things that happen in each category (hereditary diseases, people who resort to theft because they simply have nothing to eat, etc.).

People live and react.

I do not claim to know the answer to that question, though I am inclined to believe it is somewhere inbetween the two.

This brand of discussion generally does not fascinate me.

Do you suppose there are also genes or environmental factors that predispose us to arrogance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness?

Yes, I have all of them. However, theoretically, if I grew up in an environment with certain emphasis or reaction to these genes, I would have been berid of them due to negative repercussions.

But is it our duty to determine if others did their best? Isn't that God's bailiwick? Should we intrude?

Yes, it is God's position, but I believe in the Bible, and as a result have generally gleaned that God wants us to do our best and not resort to crime and to have Faith in Him.

When you talk about topics like this no one really knows the answers for scientific proof, and I feel that these have absolutely no bearing on us.

Could we ever absolve people of their responsibility because we don't know whether it is caused by hereditary or environmental (or either) factors?

Regardless of what the truth is, we have to try and overcome whatever we face.

 

[Gracchus]

Could we ever absolve people of their responsibility because we don't know whether it is caused by hereditary or environmental (or either) factors?

My point is that it is not for us to blame or absolve. If we determine that someone's behaviour is unacceptable, then we may be justified in taking action to prevent that behaviour, without regard to assumed or perceived motives.