Since time immemorial, Mankind has been grappling with the basic moral make-up and nature of the human heart. Is man inherently good or evil? Or, the statement, “Man is good AND evil,” reflects the common philosophical and religious notion that humans possess both the capacity for good and evil. This perspective suggests that humans are not simply inherently good or evil, but rather capable of both, and that their external influences, environment, physiological and emotional duress, as well as ideological surroundings and influences, determine their actions, choices, and character.

And so, are we born with propensities for both good and evil, as The Bible says? Or, are we intrinsically immoral and evil and it is only through societal laws and rules, which are superimposed upon us, that we behave morally? Is the threat of punishment necessary to “keep people in line”? Or, are we intrinsically good, but abuse, neglect, and a corrupt home and/or society turn us into immoral actors? The list goes on and on.

The Bible’s perspective on human nature, while nuanced, suggests that humans are born with a capacity for both good and evil, often emphasizing the inherent sinful nature inherited from Adam and Eve’s disobedience. While there’s a potential for good, it’s often overshadowed by the fallen state and inclination towards wrongdoing. The Bible teaches that humanity's natural state is fallen, a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden, which introduced sin and its consequences into the world. This fallen nature is characterized by a tendency towards sin, a weakened ability to know God, and a lack of the original righteousness and perfection that humans possessed before the Fall.

From The Atheist perspective, one major figure in the analysis of human behavior, Sigmund Freud, did not explicitly state that humans are born evil. Freud’s theory suggests that humans are born with a basic, primal instinct called the “id,” which is driven by pleasure and immediate gratification. This part of the personality, while not evil, can be seen as driven by selfish desires and needs that can lead to behaviors that society may consider undesirable. However, Freud also theorized that the “ego” (a sense of self) and “superego” (an artificially created “conscience” enforced by societal norms) develop over time, allowing individuals to learn to regulate these primal instincts and develop a sense of morality. In essence, Freud’s view is more complex than simply stating that people are born evil. He believed that individuals are born with a mix of primal instincts, which can be channeled into both constructive and destructive ways depending on the individual's development and the influence of their environment.

What About Babies:

In innumerable psychological studies, we observe that babies are not born inherently good or evil. They are born with a capacity for both positive and negative behaviors, and their development is shaped by their environment and experiences. The concept of “evil” is complex and develops over time as babies learn and interact with the world.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

· Innate Tendencies:

Babies are born with instincts and hardwired behaviors, including a predisposition for learning and development.

· Influence of Environment:

A child's environment, particularly the parents and their interactions, significantly impacts their personality and development.

· Moral Development:

Studies suggest that babies may possess a rudimentary sense of morality and prefer helpful behaviors.

· Learning from Experience:

Babies learn through observation and experience, and their understanding of good and bad behavior evolves over time.

· Potential for both Good and Bad:

While some individuals might be born with a predisposition towards certain behaviors, it's generally agreed that everyone has the potential for both positive and negative actions.

Key points to consider:

· The “blank slate” idea:

Some philosophers and psychologists believe that babies are born as “blank slates,” with their moral development shaped by their environment.

· Moral development is a process:

Moral development is not a one-time event but an ongoing process as babies learn and interact with the world.

· Influence of parenting:

Parents play a crucial role in shaping a child’s moral development through their interactions, teaching, and modeling behavior.

· The complexity of “evil”:

The concept of “evil” is a complex one, and it's not something that babies are born with.

Got Questions:

Nevertheless, there is a common belief today that people are born “good” and most people remain basically good at heart their whole lives. According to this theory, the evil that some people exhibit is the result of environmental factors—people only turn “bad” when external forces beyond their control twist them away from their basic goodness. This is a false, unbiblical view of human nature.

The Bible teaches that none of us are good. We are all born sinners with a sinful, selfish nature inherited from Adam. Unless we are born again by the Spirit of God, we will never see the kingdom of God (John 3:3).

Psalm 14:2–3 counters the idea that anyone is “good”: “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Add to this Jesus’ statement that “No one is good—except God alone” (Luke 18:19), and we see that we all stand guilty before God.

In the beginning, God created an absolutely perfect world. God called His creation “very good” in Genesis 1:31. The Garden of Eden was the perfect environment for the first humans, Adam and Eve. Even in that perfect environment, with all their needs met and living in a state of innocence, Adam chose to disobey God. Adam couldn’t blame environmental factors for his sinful choice; it was simply an act of his will to rebel.

When Adam disobeyed God, the first couple lost their innocence, they were ejected from the Garden, and, importantly, their basic nature was corrupted (Genesis 3:7–12). Sin and death became a part of creation. Later, when Adam had a son, the Bible describes the event this way: “He had a son in his own likeness, after his own image” (Genesis 5:3). Like father, like son. The sinner begot a sinner. Now Adam’s sin has spread to all creation: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12)

People are not born “good” because every one of us has been affected by Adam’s sin; there are no exceptions. Romans 5:18 says that “one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people.” We are sinners for two reasons: we actively sin ourselves (we are sinners in practice), and we bear a sinful character passed down from Adam (we are sinners by nature). That’s why we all face physical death: “In Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22).

It’s hard to imagine a sweet, innocent baby being a sinner, but the Bible indicates that even children possess a sin nature. Logically, if our sin nature is inherited from Adam, then babies must already possess the bent to sin. “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child” (Proverbs 22:15). Bolstering the truth of this proverb, a child’s sinful behavior begins to manifest itself quite early in his development; as soon as a child is able to start choosing between obedience and disobedience, he will begin “testing the waters” of disobedience. Children are naturally selfish, and their wayward nature is evident to anyone who has ever been around children.

The definitive passage on the fact that people are not born “good” is Psalm 51:5. Here, David speaks of his own sin nature beginning at conception: “I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me” (CSB).

There is nothing inherently “good” within any of us. There is nothing in us that could earn salvation, and on our own we have no ability to become worthy of God’s favor. We deserve only God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3). We are dead in our sins (Ephesians 2:1). But thanks be to God, who chose to send His Son, Jesus, into the world. Jesus lived without sin, and His death on the cross paid the penalty we deserved.

Charles Wesley’s hymn, “And Can It Be?”, rightly praises the Lord for His amazing love:

“He left His Father’s throne above,
So free, so infinite His grace!
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race. . . .
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?”

God’s great love for us is the only reason He offers us such an amazing gift—the gift of forgiveness of sin! John 3:16–18 says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

Are we Born With an Innate Moral Compass or is it Something we Develop as we Grow?

(BBC Earth)

Whether humans are born good or evil has been debated by philosophers for centuries. Aristotle argued that morality is learned, and that we’re born as “amoral creatures” while Sigmund Freud considered new-borns a moral blank slate. Anyone who has read “Lord of the Flies” will expect children to be fully-fledged sociopaths just waiting to be freed from their adult-imposed shackles to (spoiler alert) start a cult and brutally attempt to kill each other.

Maybe the two most famous opposing views on this debate are those of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Hobbes describes humans as ‘nasty’ and ‘brutish’, needing society and rules to reign in their instincts in order to thrive; later Rousseau openly criticized him, arguing instead that man would be gentle and pure without the corruption of greed and inequality caused by the class system imposed by our society.

However, developmental psychology studies show there may be some natural “good” in humanity (or, to be more technical, that at least kids are capable of passing moral judgements at an earlier age than previously thought).

To do this, babies less than a year old were made to watch a puppet show where different colored shapes acted in ways that were clearly recognizable as morally right or wrong. A red circle is shown struggling to climb a hill while an “evil” blue square tries to push it back down. Meanwhile, “good” yellow triangle attempts to help the red circle by pushing it up.

After the play, the babies were asked which shape they wanted to play with: evil blue square or good yellow triangle. As you may have guessed, they all picked the latter, the triangle that exhibited ‘helpful’ and ‘selfless’ behaviour. This applied even for babies as young as seven months. The scene replicates the findings of a 2010 study from the Infant Cognition Center at Yale University, which went further to prove that babies were choosing the puppets because of their actions rather than other variables (for example, an innate preference or familiarity with a certain colour or shape). When the show was replayed with the shapes taking on the opposite role, the infants still mostly chose the shape that had taken on the role of the ‘helper’.

A 2017 study from Kyoto University had a similar approach and findings to the puppet study, seemingly confirming these results. Children as young as six months were shown videos featuring three Pacman-like characters, called ‘agents’: a ‘victim’, a ‘bully’ bumping aggressively against the victim and squashing it into a wall, and a ‘third party’ agent. The third-party agent would sometimes intervene to help the victim by putting itself between the victim and the bully, and would sometimes flee instead. After watching the video, children had to choose their preferred character and most chose the intervening third-party agent who had tried to help the victim.

Other studies have also shown babies exhibit altruistic behaviour, like the ‘Big Mother Study’ from Harvard, where infants who didn’t know they were being observed still acted kind and were helpful to others, suggesting that this isn’t just a learned behaviour to avoid punishment or scrutiny.

While these studies can’t completely disprove Freud and Hobbes’ more pessimistic views on human nature, they do seem to suggest that babies are naturally inclined to prefer altruistic behaviour and that parents can be fairly confident that, while leaving their children on a desert island is probably still not the best idea, they at least won’t try to squash the weakest one with a rock (sorry, William Golding).