The issues surrounding growth and development of children have been a matter of concern for a long time as individuals and groups try to investigate what shapes individuals as they grow. In this regard, aspects of a child’s development like the nature and nurture have been a central area of debate as scholars highlight their different views on the issue, thus resulting in controversy.
Over the years, the disciplines of psychology, philosophy, and sociology have developed different theories that seek to explain the nature versus nurture theories of children development. In this light, the nature aspect refers to the genetic and hereditary elements that determine the traits of an individual. This aspect encompasses physical appearance and personality traits.
On the other hand, the nurture aspect entails environmental factors that influence people as they grow. Two philosophers, viz. G.W Leibniz and John Locke, have given their thoughts on the nature vs. nurture issue based on their innate and empiricism perspectives respectively. The following is a debate between Locke and Leibniz on the background of the nature vs. nurture issue.
Leibniz: I think the time has come for us to settle the debate on nurture vs. nature.
On this issue, I subscribe to the Platonic school of thought that both human conduct and knowledge are affected by innate factors. Considering the aspects of children development, this assertion means that individuals are born with all the knowledge that they require for growth and development of their personality and well-being. I refute the role of the environment in adding value to one’s knowledge.
Locke: Well, philosophically, I am an Aristotelian student and thus I subscribe to nurture.
I believe that individuals are born with a tabula rasa, which means a blank state that acquires knowledge through experience. In my view, the environment plays a central role in determining one’s behavior and knowledge, and thus it is essential for personal growth and development. The application of the Aristotelian ideas can be important in understanding the nature vs. nurture debate.
Leibniz: I contend that individuals think and act based on internal mechanisms, which are wired genetically. Hereditary genes are responsible for the formation of different thoughts in children, thus resulting in actions that are identical to their parents’ behaviors.
This aspect implies that natural factors are responsible for the character development of children due to the genetic connection to their parents. I do not see the significance of environmental factors in shaping one’s thoughts, thus resulting in actions as depicted in the various stages of children development.
Locke: I refute the existence of internal mechanisms that facilitate the formation of thoughts that are manifested by actions. Nurture aspects that exist in the external environment are the sole factors that influence individuals to think and act in a particular way.
In this regard, the depiction of knowledge in children is attributed to unique experiences that the blank slate acquires. Children not only think and act like their parents, but also emulate the ideas of other members in society to make their decisions. Therefore, I acknowledge the essence of external mechanisms in the development of behavior in children.
Leibniz: Beliefs and judgments are due to innate factors that build an individual’s personality. Biological aspects of individuals shape up their belief systems based on their genetic endowment. In this respect, children tend to acquire cultural values naturally based on the genetic linkages that exist in their family.
Therefore, beliefs develop among individuals due to affiliation to a particular genetic background. Consequently, judgments are formed by determining what the belief system regards as right or wrong. In this respect, I believe that children’s moral values are based on inherent genetic factors.
Locke: I firmly believe that unique experiences account for the development of beliefs and judgments within individuals. Basing my argument on empiricism, children acquire certain beliefs from the environment in which they are brought up. In this sense, socialization takes effects as various agents including parents, schools, and religious institutions.
In turn, the agents of socialization contribute to the formation of beliefs that depict their culture. Consequently, children develop judgments based on what the environment that they reside in regards right or wrong according to the inherent belief systems.
Leibniz: I believe that individuals possess inherent solutions to problems that face them. Innate mechanisms lead to the development of ideas that seek to solve issues that affect individuals. For instance, when an individual is faced with a challenging financial situation, the mind provides solutions on how to develop means of generating income.
In the case of children, hunger requires one to find ways of getting food. Therefore, a toddler will find an item to put in the mouth in a bid to solve the hunger issue. Therefore, nativism accounts for the generation of innate solutions that depict the survival instincts of individuals.
Locke: I strongly oppose the idea that individuals derive solutions to their problems from innate processes. Since knowledge is acquired through experience, the application of knowledge is meant for the resolution of problems affecting individuals. In this regard, I argue that the environment contributes majorly to the creation of appropriate solutions to problems affecting humanity.
Basing my argument on the case of a hungry child, his/her efforts to find food are derived from observations on how to deal with such a situation, and thus s/he seeks items that would satisfy their needs. In turn, the ability to solve problems portrays the development of intelligence in children, thus fostering the application of knowledge, hence the wisdom that shapes one’s personality.
Locke: Well, as a supporter of the nurture aspects of children development, I believe that environmental factors have enormous implications for the development of an individual’s personality. Unique experiences lead to the formation of characters that depict the utilization of obtained knowledge in various situations. In this light, parents and caregivers should ensure that their children go through quality experiences that would have beneficial implications in their adulthood.
This move should encompass a favorable environment at home for the children’s upbringing, quality education, socialization to instill desirable values, and quality personal and interpersonal experiences. Have you ever wondered why if the father in a family is a businessperson the children also end up in business in most cases? Nurture explains this phenomenon. The children simply acquire business acumen from their parents through learning.
Leibniz: As a staunch nativist, I refute the empiricist ideas that the personality of individuals is based on environmental factors. I firmly contend that genetic influences have a significant bearing on the personality development in children. In this respect, hormonal, genetic, and neurological aspects of an individual play a significant role in the formation of the ultimate personality.
Therefore, factors such as heredity and nutrition influence the physical, psychosocial, and intellectual development of children, thus shaping their character from childhood through adulthood. The case that you have used on a family becoming businesspersons through learning is not universal. In some cases, children take different paths from that of their parents because they are wired differently genetically.
Locke: I think the role played by the environment in the development of skills for survival cannot be underestimated. Various social institutions instill relevant skills into children that would be applied in personal development. Knowledge derived from institutions such as schools equips individuals with skills, which are necessary for their growth in society.
I do not understand how a person would acquire skills naturally without engaging with other elements of his/her surrounding for gainful experiences. Undeniably, nature provides us with problems that need to be solved by the application of acquired skills from the environment. For this reason, the notion that innate factors lead to the development of competencies, which are necessary for personal growth, is not valid.
Leibniz: I disagree that the acquisition of skills for survival is based on environmental factors. I hold that genetic endowment contributes to quick and thorough acquisition of new skills, which are essential for survival.
I maintain that strong genes, good nutrition, and a supportive home environment are accountable for the acquisition of various skills that foster the development of children. In this sense, knowledge derived from innate mechanisms leads to the natural development of skills that enhance an individual’s chances of survival in a competitive society.