Suppose we could arrange a debate between John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau on the nature--nurture controversy. Summarize the argument that each historical figure is likely to present. Be thorough, specific and succinct
TThere is plenty of source material here:
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php?id=37670
You do the summarizing
To summarize the likely arguments John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau would present in a debate on the nature-nurture controversy:
John Locke:
John Locke was an empiricist who believed in the philosophy of tabula rasa, which asserts that individuals are born with a blank slate and are shaped entirely by their environment. In the nature-nurture debate, Locke would emphasize the significance of nurture, arguing that individuals are predominantly influenced and molded by their experiences, education, and upbringing. Locke would advocate for the nurturing environment as the primary determinant of a person's development and attributes.
Jean Jacques Rousseau:
Jean Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, embraced the idea of innate capabilities and innate goodness in children. He would argue that individuals are born with innate qualities and tendencies, which he referred to as "natural man." Rousseau believed that nature, or one's intrinsic characteristics and genetics, hold significant weight in shaping a person's development and behavior. While Rousseau recognized the influence of nurturing environment, he believed that nature primarily determines an individual's core attributes.
In summary, John Locke's argument would center around the role of nurture, asserting that individuals are shaped predominantly by their experiences and environment. In contrast, Jean Jacques Rousseau would emphasize the significance of nature, arguing that people possess innate qualities and tendencies that heavily influence their development.