<p>[Babies</a> not as innocent as they pretend - Telegraph](<a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3298979/Babies-not-as-innocent-as-they-pretend.html]Babies”>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3298979/Babies-not-as-innocent-as-they-pretend.html)</p>
<p>Babies are manipulative. So there goes the whole “we’re born pure!” argument…</p>
<p>Okay, at 6 months. Because society corrupts 6 months olds.</p>
<p>It’s impossible to determine whether a baby is good or not by leaving them alone and observing them, since they’d die. Observing them at 6 months old with just parental interaction is as close as it gets.</p>
<p>anyone else?</p>
<p>You still haven’t explained, milliee, what makes killing, or deception, or anything else you consider “evil,” evil?</p>
<p>I don’t think people born are inherently evil or anything.</p>
<p>“Human Nature” or so it is described is completely factitious and without any basis. [Science</a> overturns view of humans as naturally ?nasty? | The Raw Story](<a href=“http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/]Science”>http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/)</p>
<p>For example, racism, is something learned by their parents. It has been passed down for generations, parents have taught their kids that “this ethnicity is bad”. People aren’t naturally supposed to have severe hatred for another ethnicity, they are taught to do so, or learn from their surroundings…</p>
<p>I think bad and good are relative. There are societies that have embraced cannibalism/human sacrifice, yet that is good to them, so their answer to something of this sort could be viewed differently, in the light that cannibalism is generally a negative thing. But they learned to do this, and don’t understand that it would be bad until they are exposed to society.</p>
<p>Topic: The original nature of man is good but corrupted by society.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re arguing the affirmative. The burden of the proof is on you. Please prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that newborns are inherently good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No evidence regarding humans in that article, just observations about animals. Also, I’m not sure how scientific that is.</p>
<p>milliee:
</p>
<p>I’m sorry but your argument doesn’t make any sense in context. Neanderthals had a society and they died off, but this doesn’t mean they died off because they had a society; we humans survived and we also had a society, indeed that we had larger, more complex and more efficient communities is probably why we “won”. The correlation just doesn’t work here.</p>
<p>To be blunt if you think society does more harm to humans than good you’re free to leave and live in the wilderness. Obviously there are negative effects but this philosophical pandering is just that - Rousseau himself benefited from societal institutions everywhere he went.</p>
<p>I would agree with RMIBstudent.
I think that the complexity and further development allowed us to outlast the previous species, and obviously though there are always threats in society to endanger us there is never any reasonable question of total extinction. It’s just because we’ve been able to progress farther, and I definitely wouldn’t blame it entirely on society to have destroyed a species.</p>