Are Humans Good or Bad?: Hobbes vs. Rousseau or should you breast-feed your baby?

I recently exchanged e-mails with one of my former students, Kimberly Smith about the perennial question concerning human nature: Are humans good or bad?

This question continues to fascinate us. For my students, I classify it as a great Starbucks Question (i.e., the kind of question a few smart friends could have fun kicking around in a coffee shop).

Given my recent exchange with Kim, I thought I would post about this question this week.

When I lecture about human nature to my students, I like to frame the debate by pitting Thomas Hobbes against Jean-Jacques Rousseau. (I should note that much of this analysis was inspired by Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate).

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was an English philosopher and the author of the famous book Leviathan. Famously, Hobbes declared that primitive human life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
I use Hobbes to illustrate the pessimistic view of "natural man." That is, as illustrated by Hobbes' famous summation, Hobbes felt that the "natural" state of man was akin to being beast-like. Thus, it is civilization that steps in and recuses humanity from our primal depravity. In this view, human nature is a nasty thing that human culture rescues. In Hobbes' view, being "civilized" is good and being a "savage" is bad.

Contrast this view with the view of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) the Enlightenment philosopher whose book The Social Contract influenced the French Revolution: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." In contrast to Hobbes' view that primitive life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," Rousseau declared that humans in early times were "noble savages." That is, humans are naturally and innately good and it is "civilization" that turns man into a "beast." Thus, Rousseau argued that modern man should seek to restore the conditions of our lost Eden and live a more "natural" rather than "technological" life.

To summarize, we can create a quick schematic summary contrasting Hobbes and Rousseau:

Hobbes:
Human Nature = Bad
Civilization = Good

Rousseau:
Human Nature = Good
Civilization = Bad

In sum, for Hobbes civilization saves us from ourselves. Without it we would regress to a beast-like state. For Rousseau, civilization is killing us. Thus, for Rousseau, the goal is to reclaim a more natural existence.

So, who is right? Hobbes or Rousseau?

Unfortunately, by this point in my lecture, only about two students are awake. So, to show them that this question is actually of practical and not just academic interest, I ask the following question: Are you planning to breast-feed your baby?

(This question gets the girls awake, for obvious reasons. It gets the boys awake because the word "breast" was uttered in class. Human nature, good or bad, can, at times, be remarkably predictable...)

I bring up parenting in the conversation about Hobbes and Rousseau because it is in parenting where we tend to reveal if we vote with Hobbes or Rousseau.

Hobbesian parents tend to think that a child's nature is unruly, undisciplined, and selfish. Not in an evil way. More of a benign "They don't know any better." Thus, these parents tend to emphasize training and structure.

Rousseauian parents tend to think that a child's nature is innocence and goodness. Thus, these parents tend to de-emphazie structure in the child's environment.

To illustrate, here are some contrasts:

Painkillers during delivery:
Hobbesian parents more likely to use painkillers
Rousseauian parents more likely not to use painkillers

Feeding:
Hobbesian parents more likely to bottle-feed
Rousseauian parents more likely to breast-feed

Feeding Times:
Hobbesian parents more likely to feed on a schedule
Rousseauian parents more likely to feed on demand

Discipline:
Hobbesian parents more likely to spank
Rousseauian parents more likely not to spank

Sleeping:
Hobbesian parents more likely to allow child to cry in crib until asleep
Rousseauian parents more likely to hold child until asleep

Now I'm not suggesting this as some kind of rigorous, diagnostic classification. I'm mostly trying to illustrate a point: Whether we like discussing human nature at Starbucks or not, you DO have a theory of human nature and it has everyday manifestations. In parenting, some of us go "natural." Others are more "technological" (painkillers, formula, behavioral parenting strategies). And parenting is hardly the only place where we see these differences. We see them in how we choose to eat, how we choose to use medicine, and how we feel about city life (to name a few things).

Hobbes and Rousseau are still with us. And we, in the choices we make today, help keep their debate alive.