hh_clubs | DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

Entry tags:

defense against the dark arts

DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

Hello DADA-ers!

I hope that you have gotten a lot of rest since our obstacle course and are ready for you next Challenge!

This challenge is fairly simple, all you have to do is express your opinion ~~this may be hard for my fellow Slytherins~~ just kidding!

Points:
This is a long debate, therefore there will be 10 pts awarded for first comment. 2pts for each additional comment. Initial comments must be 3-4 sentences and contribute to the on-topic conversation for credit. Follow up comments must consist of at least 2 sentences.

Deadline:
February 21, 2009 at 11:59 pm EST

Details:
Was Tom Riddle born evil or did he grow to be evil? Was Harry Potter innately good or could he have turned out bad? We heard some ideas from Dumbledore and Sirius when talking to Harry but what do you think?

Are people born being who they are or do they become who they are? Why are people good or evil? If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?

Participants will discuss and debate the idea of nature v. nurture and how one become good or evil. There are no sides for this discussion.

This suggestion was from

thesamanthahope so extra 5 points if you participates.

Bonus Points
In your first comment please tell me if you own any of the following books:
#019 The Dark Arts Outsmarted
#024 Defensive Magical Theory
#031 The Dark Forces: A Guide To Self Protection
#032 The Rise And Fall Of The Dark Arts
#047 Practical Defensive Magic And Its Use Against The Dark Arts

Owners will get 2 points per book!

You have to be a member to participate so
Join Us

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I think that Nature vs. Nurture debate in general is rather pointless. It's difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish one from another. Yet, evilness adds its own side to this discussion because it answers the question: who is to blame for?

There is a certain appeal in blaming nature; it takes off the responsibility from society’s shoulders, and especially so, if an “evil” person is considered to be faulty: there is nothing wrong with our morals or laws, he is ill, he is just a freak of nature. And of course, it’s easier to think that people like Hitler suffered from personality disorders or were in any other ways mentally unwell (with no regard to if they were actually damaged or not) . Because if we admit that a completely sane and perfectly healthy person can justify murdering thousands and thousands of people, than this becomes a pretty scary world to live in.

However, blaming society can be very convenient, too. There is an episode in "A Bit of Fry and Laurie", where a man kills his in-laws and then tells his wife that he is not the one to blame – the system made him do it. If someone has alcohol-addicted parents, it’s only logical to expect that he will develop some sort of addiction too. But the thing is, logic is not the most reliable source when it comes to human nature. There are a lot of people who were raised by abusive parents or grew up in the orphanage, but somehow managed to stay kind and healthy. And there twice as many people who were loved and cherished by their families, but ended up committing something horrible. Of course, exceptions only prove the rule, but in this case every exception is somebody’s life.

What I am trying to say is that despite Nature and Nurture being equally responsible for person’s behavior, people choose one of them either to blame for their misdeeds or to praise for their virtues. It’s a matter of convenience. Or we can suggest that nothing but random circumstances determine our destiny by allowing us to develop our natural instincts or our up-brought traits. Personally, I like the last one better, chaos is always fun.

As for Tom Riddle, well... Look at it this way: yes, he had a very, very evil heritage, but his nurture wasn’t something to be jealous of either. This is exactly the same way with Sirius: evil, evil family tree and insane unloving mother. But he turned out all right (well, as all right as anyone can possibly be after spending ten years in Azkban). See? Completely random.

Now , Harry. He is not a particularly good person. He is a normal person. He wants to stop (well, kill) Voldemort because he killed his parents, his parent’s best friends, his favorite teacher and pretty much everyone Harry cares about. He doesn’t want to kill the Dark Lord in order to restore some imaginary balance to the world. He doesn’t care that much about muggles. It’s only in the last book when Harry becomes a true, text-book hero. Save the humanity and all that.

If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?
I don’t think he would, Harry’s life with Dursley’s didn’t contrast too much with Tom’s life in orphanage to make any significant difference. But I think that Dumbledore believed that any family is better than no family at all. Why else would he leave Harry to live with Dursleys?

Maria//Slytherin

She's writing for teens, though, wouldn't you expect teens to start being able to handle it? Feh to Good Moral Lessons, anyway! *bites thumb at them* Good storytelling is way more important!

Because it's easier to think of the world that way.

"What is right instead of what is easy." Wow, she's really shooting herself in the foot, what with this, and your point about choices - which frustrated me a lot, because you're right. She says all this stuff and then doesn't hold to it.

Sai // Ravenclaw

Is it really beyond his control, though? Being a sociopath doesn't deprive someone of their ability to make choices. It doesn't stop them from choosing not to hurt people, it just makes them unable to understand why such a choice matters...

But then I'm talking about real-world stuff again - in JKR's world where Tom is inherently evil rather than naturally amoral (actually, I'd love to see an AU where he was amoral, and was actually working off a properly thought-out plan of what he thought was the rational way for the WW to be, rather than the "must hurt everyone in sight" thing he has going in canon), then maybe he doesn't have control over it... and maybe he really can't be blamed for it... Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't still have to be stopped.

Sai // Ravenclaw

Before I read other comments, allow me to give mine. I think there is a combination of nurture and nature involved. History, not to mention fiction, is full of cases where circumstances helped make the man as it were. Without getting into cosmology too deeply, the debate can be looked at as free will or predestination.

I think had Tom Riddle grown up more like Harry, he may not have done some of the things he had. To separate out Harry's nurture from nature regarding his choices is an almost impossible task. He didn't know about his magical abilities, nor had the wherewithall to control them before the Trace was put on him. He had no chance to become what Tom did.

Certainly, Harry wouldn't have become Voldemort. Voldemort was the culmination of a unique set of circumstances not only in nurture, but also time and space.

Kimberly / Slytherin

I'm a stepmom, and while my son's father is in his life, his mother and I fight daily to combat the inherent laziness and apathy that is there. It's possible, but he will always have tendencies. Sometimes I think that it also depends on how strong certain genetic factors are. We comment regularly about how "weak" his father's genes are (always out of earshot of course), but some things are easier to counter and some aren't.

I completely agree that nature and nurture are very very close in what they can do, and maybe it is the learned behaviors that make the difference. After all, when pressed, Harry's first response is to push everyone away, leaving him exposed, not unlike Tom.

Kimberly / Slytherin

PS I'm glad you have two loving families as it were. ;-)

I have a question about your comment here. You talk about nature being more important, and Tom having the brain structure of a sociopath. Then you mention that the first 15 months of Harry's life made him structurally different than tom. Wouldn't that be a case of nurture affecting nature then?

I'm not arguing the brain structure, but rather are you discussing genetic factors or environmental factors in solidifying it?

Kimberly / Slytherin

True, once Tom began certain behaviors, the feelings and motivations behind them were encouraged through the Muggles pushing him further away. The spiral is very easy to see and predict at that point and the further along the spiral, the more drastic something would have to be to counter it.

Had Tom been adopted early on (within a year or two), by someone who loved him unconditionally (something Tom never got and something that is very important to remember), then I firmly believe he wouldn't have become Voldemort. He wouldn't be sweetness and light, but he wouldn't have acted on the sociopathic tendencies either.

Kimberly / Slytherin

Well, yes, the tags "evil" and "good" are extremes and the gray area is so very wide.

It is said that those who lack the ability to feel guilt (feeling bad when one does something to harm or hurt others) are sociopathic. However, shame is something that can be taught and used to curb sociopathic behavior (shame being feeling bad because what you did will push away the ones you love).

I like how you bring up the mental illness argument as well as how complex this whole argument really is when you're discussing something this grand.

Kimberly / Slytherin

I have to say, I love your bringing that aspect into this. There are people who overcome fantastic odds, and those who have everything they could ever want and never amount to anything. Ambition and drive are certainly factors, but they are an internal nature/nurture thing. Are you a victim or a survivor? I know of no genetic or family component that decides that, and yet, it changes how someone reacts to their circumstances.

Kimberly / Slytherin

*thinks she needs to really think about this debate more! thanks!*

Is it really beyond his control, though? Being a sociopath doesn't deprive someone of their ability to make choices. It doesn't stop them from choosing not to hurt people; it just makes them unable to understand why such a choice matters...

Thank you for pointing this out. People seem to have the wrong idea about sociopaths. They are not insane, they have no compassion and they are no capable of empathy, but they are completely aware of their actions. Their choices are still their choices, and they are still responsible for them.

Maria//Slytherin

Voldemort was the culmination of a unique set of circumstances not only in nurture, but also time and space.

You managed to put all my thoughts on the subject in one sentence!

But if we define Tom as a sociopath and argue that sociopathy is almost impossible to overcome (due to a lack of interest in overcoming it) then we need to define what makes a sociopath.

If it is merely lack of innate guilt, then there are a great many, myself included, who would be considered sociopaths. If it is a lack of internal morality (i.e. amoral people) then again, many people who are not sociopaths would qualify. It is the choice to act on those impulses and thoughts. There has to be more, in which case we go back to nurture being a large part.

Incidentally, I completely agree with your comment regarding why Harry chose Slytherin. He was also told that Slytherins killed his parents, a very compelling reason not to join said house.

Kimberly / Slytherin

I believe though that sociopathy is also defined by an inability to feel any kind of sympathy for any other being. There may be many people with no morals or lacking guilt, but to have these traits and also completely lack any sympathy for any other being would make a sociopath. Sociopaths are the kind of people who can watch a kitten being tortured because hey, it's not happening to them. They have trouble seeing other people as people like them.

Sounds like Voldy to me. :)

Sociopathy is believed by researchers to be a combination of nature and nurture, but afaik the nature has to be present. Could be wrong, not a psychologist.

Stephanie//Slytherin

Oh, I'm not arguing the presence of the nature, but it requires both, I believe, and so yes, I think very rarely are you presented with the combination so clearly.

What I'm not clear on is this, and it's not your point, it's JKR's, I also thought (though I could be wrong) that sociopaths don't feel any form of empathy and are completely unable to connect with anyone around them. This includes feeling hatred toward someone, which Voldy is completely able to do.

And yes, psychology isn't my forte either. But ethics and morality fascinate me.

Kimberly / Slytherin

See, when I consider Voldy's anger and hate it's more of a personal frustration that he's been thwarted, and sociopaths are extremely prone to frustration with society, with "unfair" things they believe have happened to them. It's not a personal anger: he doesn't hate Harry because of who Harry is as a person, he hates Harry because of who Harry-the-object is: the baby that thwarted him and caused his downfall. He hates Harry because Harry messed his shit up, basically: Harry could be Neville or Draco or anyone, really.

Stephanie//Slytherin

You can't really expect children to wade through moral ambiguity, she's trying to teach 'em some good MORAL LESSONS don'tchaknow.

I actually disagree. Children are way, way, WAY more capable of understanding complex moral dilemmas than anyone gives them credit for, and they usually don't need

I think, as other commenters have said, that this was a lazy choice on the part of JK, and that the story would have been much more gripping and informative to children if Tom had NOT been born evil; if we were shown that events in his life had caused him to become "evil". He would have been a much scarier villain if he'd actually had a plan for the wizarding world, I think, and a true reason for wanting to destroy the Muggles: he would have been terrifying if he'd thought he was doing the Right Thing. And I think that yeah, kids CAN understand that. :)

...unless of course you're being sarcastic. In which case I love you a little.

Stephanie//Slytherin

It's interesting to note that Tom didn't really HAVE anyone to tell him, though, that what he was doing was wrong. By the time Dumbledore got to him, he was too adept at covering up his more socially unacceptable actions with a veneer of charisma.

So if Tom had been raised by a decent, loving family (I'm not saying the orphanage was horrible, just that it's not a substitute for the personal attention a family can give), would he be any different?

Stephanie//Slytherin

Oh, I agree: in Harry's situation, I wouldn't have gone for Slytherin. Having been derpived of love for that long and then meeting Hagrid, who knew his parents and actually cared about him, who was his only source of info about the wizarding world, he was of course going to abide by what Hagrid said and I can't say I'd have done differently. But me aged eleven, in the situation I was in then... if I'd known anything about the houses I would have chosen Slytherin.

And... I never really thought of doomed-baby-Voldemort in the context of sociopath!Tom. Mind you, sociopathy is a product of both nature and nurture, and most scientists seem to believe that the nature is necessary, the capacity to become a sociopath; nature is what activates it. So maybe the baby-Voldy is what's left of the Tom who could have been raised by a loving family and given the individual care and attention needed to turn him from his path. Which is... really creepy AND sad.

Stephanie//Slytherin

Good point. It's possible, I suppose, that if he'd had someone to teach him morals and offer him better choices early on, he might have turned out a better person. But then again he might not. While not all people with sociopathic brain structures become criminals, plenty of those who do come out of loving families who did try to teach them right from wrong... Tom might have listened to those trying to teach him, or he might still have made the same choices, and we really can't know for sure.

Sai // Ravenclaw

I think Tom Riddle was born evil, but could've grown up to be nice, except he chose not to. I think that Nature and Nurture both are important to determine the end result "person"; however I also think people have the choice. It's not all nature or nurture, it's not all about what genes one has or where one grew up in, but just the choice of acting out what one wants to act out. Like, if Helga Hufflepuff had grown up in a house filled with sadness I think she would be able to rise and shine and be even more empathic towards people who come from broken homes. That's because she already had a heart of gold. Growing up around sad people would not change this fact.

So Harry and Voldemort were similar, in a way that Voldemort gave a bit of himself to Harry- but in fact, their genes aren't similar at all. Harry came from a family of intelligent, hot-headed people, whereas Voldemort came from a family of close-minded, hot-headed, power-hungry people.
The nurture part is more similar in that they were estranged from their family so I'll disregard the nurture part and focus more on the nature part:
basically Voldie is already more inclined to pick indulging himself and his whimsical fantasies of Killing All due to his genes.
Harry is just normal.

So I come to choice:
I don't think that Harry chose to be good. In my mind, he's actually quite neutral. He chose to be against Voldie, because Voldie made himself an enemy of Harry by killing his parents. It was just convenient that Voldie was a bad guy, so that automatically pushed Harry in the Good Guy camp.
Voldie, on the other hand, chose to be bad, though, because it was easier for him, just like some people find it easier to become alcoholics.

Mia of Ravenclaw
p.s. I've got all the books.

Well, not being able to feel empathy is featured in more than sociopathy (which is now normally described as an anti-social disorder). It's also a feature of Autism. My brother, for example, finds expressions of pain quite amusing. Not because he's sadistic, but because he understands it only as a reaction, not as the same situation would feel to him. There's no filter there of 'oh, I won't laugh, because I would be offended if someone laughed if I had just put my hand on a hot pan'. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

I don't think you can hate someone if you can't feel anything but indifference about them. I agree with Stephanie. People who don't feel empathy don't really care who's in their way, it's the problem that they care about.

Sociopathy is basically a collection of traits that lead towards you being regarded a poor member of society. Poor behavioural/impulse control, severely blunted emotion, not acknowledging the existence of consequences (or the ability to switch this on and off).

I still have in my head your comment earlier, about using shame to correct someone's behaviour. In fact, the whole idea of having a mental disorder which equates to you opting out of society and gets you branded 'evil' scares me a bit. And now I feel we ought to have a debate about whether evil is about choice or is inherent xD Or exists.

I wonder if anyone could have made Voldemort feel shame. I don't reckon so personally. I think JK built him too determined to his purpose.

Sam//Slytherin

Edited 2009-02-22 01:45 (UTC)

I was. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was a younger teenager I could almost smell moral lessons on books, and disliked the obvious stuff. It's best if the moral lesson is incidental to the plot, just like morality is wrapped around life itself.

Sam//Slytherin

I think it's a mixture of nature and nurture. There's truth in that genes affect your brain structure, and the way you see the world, and there's also truth in that being taught affects the way you see the world. There's no sharp divide between good and evil though, it's mostly what you're taught to believe is right or wrong at first, and how you react to that.

Gabriela of Ravenclaw

Harry's capacity to love is the amazing force throughout the story. Regardless of his childhood, or maybe even in spite of it, Harry found friends who were loyal to him and he held on to them throughout his life. He always amazed me with his ability not to be bitter about how he grew up. I don't think I could have managed that.

END OF COMMENTS FOR POINTS

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 3

DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject