2007-11-02 07:58:11 · 4 answers · asked by maddypoo1205 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
I am doing a project where we are putting William Golding (author of Lord of the Flies) on trial and seeing if his claims about how humans are naturally aggressive and violent because it is in thier nature are true. I am a witness and I have to pretend that I am Pablo Picasso and testify in what he would believe in (nature or nurture that causes humans to be naturally violent and agressive). Since he is a pacifist, I was trying to see if a pacificst would believe in nature or nurture.
2007-11-02 14:55:23 · update #1
For what? Some things are obviously a product of nature, others behaviors or traits happen as a result of nurture. And some things are in a grey area--a little of both?
A pacifist wouldn't choose one over the other more than any other person.
**I just read your added details. What a great project! From that perspective, I think that your Picasso would probably argue nature because he wouldn't want to believe that the behaviors of one human being (parent) could influence another (child) to behave in such a violent way.
2007-11-02 08:51:30 · answer #1 · answered by dashelamet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can't speak for pacifists, but an educated person should believe in both.
2007-11-02 15:03:35 · answer #2 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This pacifist believes in both.
Why do you ask?
What connection do you see between these completely unrelated ideas?
If you'd explained your question (if you really have one), we might have given more helpful answers.
2007-11-02 18:28:26 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably nurture. Pacifists are all mama's boys :)
2007-11-02 15:23:47 · answer #4 · answered by Bgirl9488 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋