TLDR: In this clip from "Being in the Way: Seeing Through the Net," Alan Watts argues that Western culture's inheritance of the Christian doctrine of original sin has created a fundamental distrust of human nature itself. Unlike Eastern religions, which generally assume humans have a basic goodness at their core, the Western worldview frames the human being as inherently flawed and requiring external control. Watts suggests that this theological inheritance shapes everything from child-rearing to social policy, and that recognizing our basic nature as fundamentally sound—rather than sinful—is essential to living authentically and freely.
What Does Original Sin Do to Our Sense of Self?
The doctrine of original sin, central to Christian theology for nearly two thousand years, carries a specific psychological and spiritual claim: that humans are born tainted by the transgression of Adam and Eve, and that we must constantly work against our nature to become acceptable. This is not merely a theological abstraction. Watts points out that this doctrine has seeped into the cultural water of the West in ways that shape how we relate to ourselves at the deepest level.
When a child grows up in a culture shaped by this assumption, the message is clear: your basic nature—your desires, your impulses, your spontaneity—cannot be trusted. You are fundamentally broken and must be fixed through discipline, obedience, and external authority. This creates a split within the psyche: the ego must constantly police the self, monitoring and controlling what arises naturally. The result is a civilization of people at war with themselves, treating their own nature as an enemy to be subdued rather than a ground to be trusted.
Watts emphasizes that this isn't simply a matter of religious doctrine affecting "religious people." The assumption has become so embedded in Western culture—in education, law, economics, and parenting—that even secular people operate from this baseline distrust. We legislate as if people are inherently selfish and must be constrained. We educate children as if their natural curiosity must be channeled and controlled rather than honored. We build economic systems on the assumption that self-interest must be regulated from above.
How Does Eastern Philosophy Approach Human Nature Differently?
Watts contrasts this with the fundamental assumption underlying most Eastern religions, particularly Taoism and Hinduism: that the basic nature of humans is sound. This doesn't mean humans are perfect or never cause harm. Rather, it means that at the core, when we are not twisted by fear, conditioning, and neurotic self-policing, we are naturally inclined toward wisdom, compassion, and harmony with others.
In Taoist philosophy, this shows up in the concept of Wu Wei—"non-forcing" or "action through non-action." The assumption is that when you stop interfering with your own nature and trust the deeper intelligence at work in the organism, right action flows naturally. You don't need to constantly think about what the right thing to do is; it arises organically from a consciousness that is no longer split against itself.
Similarly, in Hindu and Buddhist frameworks, the recognition of basic Buddha-nature or Atman (the true Self) posits that beneath the conditioned personality lies something whole, intelligent, and fundamentally untainted. The spiritual work is not to create goodness where there is badness, but to remove the obscurations—the conditioning, the fear, the false beliefs—that cover over what is already there.
This philosophical orientation has profound practical implications. If you trust your basic nature, you can let yourself think, feel, and act more spontaneously. You don't need as much external control because you're not assuming you're naturally inclined toward destruction. Education can focus on awakening curiosity rather than suppressing impulse. Law can be based on the idea that people respond to fairness and community, not just punishment. Relationships can rest on trust rather than suspicion.
Why Does Western Culture Struggle with Self-Trust?
Watts suggests that the Western world is caught in a double bind created by this theological inheritance. On the one hand, there is constant pressure to achieve, improve, and become better—to transcend the flawed nature you're told you were born with. On the other hand, there is a pervasive anxiety that you can never fully succeed, because the basic defect goes all the way down. You are, by definition, sinful.
This creates what Watts would recognize as a neurotic pattern: the ego becomes hyperactive, constantly trying to prove itself, control itself, and monitor itself. The more you struggle against your nature, the more you become alienated from it. And the more alienated you become, the more you actually behave in destructive ways—not because you are inherently sinful, but because you've learned to distrust yourself and have become psychologically fragmented.
There's a cruel irony here: the doctrine meant to inspire moral behavior often creates the very conditions for immoral behavior, because it severs people from the source of genuine ethics—which, from an Eastern perspective, flows naturally from an integrated, trusting relationship with one's own being.
What Changes When We Start Trusting Our Basic Nature?
Watts invites a practical experiment: what would happen if you assumed, for a moment, that your basic nature is sound? Not that you're perfect, not that you never make mistakes, but that at the core, you are oriented toward life, toward connection, toward wisdom. What shifts?
First, there is a relaxation of the constant vigilance. You don't need to monitor yourself so rigorously because you're not assuming malice is lurking just beneath the surface. This relaxation itself is therapeutic—the nervous system downregulates, anxiety decreases, and you become more present.
Second, decision-making becomes less fraught. Instead of asking "What should I do to be a good person?" (which presumes you're naturally not good), you can ask "What does the situation call for?" and trust that when you're not interfering with yourself, the right response arises. This is not recklessness; it's the difference between playing music while worrying constantly about hitting the wrong note versus playing music and allowing the body's intelligence to guide the fingers.
Third, your relationship to others changes. If you trust yourself, you're less likely to need to control others or assume malevolent intent. You can meet people as fundamentally whole beings rather than as potential threats to be managed. This is the basis for genuine community and cooperation.
How Does This Apply to Modern Life?
Watts' argument carries particular weight in contemporary contexts. Consider parenting: a parent operating from the assumption that the child is basically good will create very different conditions than one operating from the assumption that the child's nature must be constantly corrected. The first parent might focus on providing a secure environment and awakening curiosity; the second might focus on discipline and compliance.
Or consider mental health: therapies that help people befriend themselves, accept themselves, and trust their organism's wisdom show different results than those that frame the psyche as fundamentally broken and in need of external fixing. Cognitive-behavioral therapy combined with somatic and mindfulness practices often works because it helps people trust their own awareness rather than constantly fighting it.
Or consider social policy: Laws and systems built on the assumption that people are naturally selfish will look very different from those built on the assumption that people naturally care about fairness and community. The first leads to punitive and controlling structures; the second can foster genuine cooperation.
The deepest application, though, is to your moment-to-moment consciousness. Right now, as you read this, notice: are you trusting yourself? Are you assuming your impulses toward understanding, rest, connection, and growth are basically sound? Or are you monitoring yourself, assuming something needs to be fixed or improved? What would it feel like to relax that vigilance, just slightly, and trust the intelligence that is already operating through your being?
Where to Go from Here
Exploring this teaching invites several directions. You might investigate the history of original sin and how it shaped Western culture through sources like James Hollis' "Why Good People Do Bad Things" or William Irwin Thompson's work on cultural history. You could also explore Eastern philosophical frameworks directly—the Bhagavad Gita's discussion of dharma (right action flowing from nature), the Taoist texts on Wu Wei, or contemporary teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh who bridge Eastern and Western understanding of human nature. Practically, you might experiment with self-compassion meditation, which directly challenges the assumption that you are fundamentally flawed and invites trust in your own capacity for wisdom. Finally, consider how the assumption of basic goodness might reshape one area of your life—how you parent, how you manage yourself, how you relate to someone you've been struggling with—and notice what changes.
