In Life is a Dream, by Pedro Calderon de la Barca, there are two essential, opposing perspectives of human nature. One view is that humans live and react based upon their wishes and what they want. This view is furthered in that the only way to control this pursuit of individual happiness is to govern people and their individual ways of acting with laws and reasoning: basically, society's overall regulations on how we are supposed to behave. The opposing view is that we are born with our own sense of behavioral attitudes and that they are not taught through viewing life around us.
             Segismund is contained in a prison without experiencing different ways of life. He only knows what he has seen and lived, and since the only thing he has seen and lived is limited, his behavior is acceptable for his surroundings. He has no one to compare himself to, thus, he does not know the right or wrong of his conduct. This is true with all people, everywhere. People are not expected to be born and innately gain manners and respect. Society expects people to be trained to be thoughtful, kind and moral. This is why parenting a child is not only normal but expected in our society. We believe that if a child behaves poorly, it is a reflection upon his or her parents. Why should it be any different for Segismund? To place Segismund into a different surrounding and expect him to behave according to that surrounding's behavioral norm is illogical. We would never expect an orphan that has gone without years of training in manners and values to even so much as greet an official properly, let alone replace an official in his position and further rule a country!
             To claim that a child of young age has the innate sense of good behavior that can equally compare to an adult of cultural knowledge and experience in behavioral training is absurd. Can we now claim that if an entire generation's children received no training in the field...