30

These lines set forth two perspectives on the human condition. Though historical contemporaries, with respect to the human condition they are as far apart philosophically as can be imagined. The first is from the New England Primer; a Puritan schoolbook intended to teach the alphabet and Christian behavior. The second is from John Locke, an Enlightenment philosopher. The two showcase the nature-nurture issue.

The Primer says that our nature decides what we will be like; Locke claimed that nurture determines everything. The first says that from before birth our lives are shaped by disobedience or pride or self-interest or whatever; the second says that nothing is inherent, everything is learned. Although there are always, individually and collectively, some of both in all of us, each view has had its time of dominance. The first shaped western civilization since the time of Abraham and before; the second moved to replace it in the eighteenth century and following. During those years when the belief in Adam’s fall prevailed, rules, laws, and moral codes were established to control human nature. Locke kept them, of course, but to guide, not to restrain; to lift up, not to look back. In that way, mankind, freed from medieval dogma and superstition, would bring about a better and better world.

It will, I think, be generally agreed that Locke’s view is the modern view. We are more likely to think we can improve this world than to worry about our wicked ways. But it is not clear that Locke was on the right track. It is not clear that experience has imprinted our tabula rasa with what we need for an improved life. It is not clear that the world is getting better and better.