I didn’t know much about the nurture versus nature argument as a child. I knew the basic opinions of both sides; nature, which claimed that humans are born naturally evil and selfish, and nurture, which claimed humans’ actions are dictated by their experiences. I also knew that it was a very controversial topic, and that my religion claimed we were all naturally sinful based on the story of original sin, where the first humans God created, Adam and Eve, are tempted by Satan to eat forbidden fruit, which condemns the rest of humanity to unavoidable sin. Although this was instilled in me from a young age, I believed differently. I thought that everyone is born with both good and violence and peace inside of them, and their nurturing decides
…show more content…
Because I was an attorney during Golding Trial I was very biased throughout my research of the topic which affected my ability to consider both sides. Our readings in Golding’s Lord of the Flies did very little to convince me. Literature is such a difficult thing to use as a credible source because the author can shape how the plot progresses to fit his personal opinion. Golding obviously only let the boys act according to his opinion to strengthen his claim, which makes his book insubstantial evidence for claim regarding all of humanity. In preparation for Golding Trial I had to read almost every witness statement in my trial, and in turn gained lots of perspective on both sides. My surprise witness was Malala Yousafzai, a teenage girl from Pakistan who miraculously survived getting shot in the head by the taliban for standing up for women’s education rights. Her story provides strong evidence for the nurture side because she says she never felt a desire to hurt the men who hurt her, she only felt remorse for their negative situation. This is because of her positive upbringing with two parents who supported her in everything she did and taught her to be loving and forgiving. This majorly affected my opinion because it is amazing that a young girl could distinguish herself in such a graceful manner after suffering through a terrible event. If Freud’s theory were true, Malala would not have yet had a fully developed superego because she was a child. Subsequently she would have acted out violently towards her
Because I was an attorney during Golding Trial I was very biased throughout my research of the topic which affected my ability to consider both sides. Our readings in Golding’s Lord of the Flies did very little to convince me. Literature is such a difficult thing to use as a credible source because the author can shape how the plot progresses to fit his personal opinion. Golding obviously only let the boys act according to his opinion to strengthen his claim, which makes his book insubstantial evidence for claim regarding all of humanity. In preparation for Golding Trial I had to read almost every witness statement in my trial, and in turn gained lots of perspective on both sides. My surprise witness was Malala Yousafzai, a teenage girl from Pakistan who miraculously survived getting shot in the head by the taliban for standing up for women’s education rights. Her story provides strong evidence for the nurture side because she says she never felt a desire to hurt the men who hurt her, she only felt remorse for their negative situation. This is because of her positive upbringing with two parents who supported her in everything she did and taught her to be loving and forgiving. This majorly affected my opinion because it is amazing that a young girl could distinguish herself in such a graceful manner after suffering through a terrible event. If Freud’s theory were true, Malala would not have yet had a fully developed superego because she was a child. Subsequently she would have acted out violently towards her