Bred in the bone? (Study suggests children have a sense of morality at a very young age)

WORLD ^ | June 19, 2010 | Janie B. Cheaney

[rhema]

Years ago, when our daughter attended a church- sponsored preschool, we were invited to an informal meeting about parenting techniques. After orientation by the school director, we broke into discussion groups. The topic was discipline, a burning issue for preschool parents, swerving naturally to "How do we teach them right from wrong?" One father in our group apparently wanted to stir the pot. Early in the conversation he asked, "But how do we know what's right and wrong? Do those words have any meaning?"

If he was hoping for a Socratic discussion he didn't get it, neither the first time nor the second time he asked. No one even challenged the premise. I didn't know the man: He might have been an amateur student of philosophy, or a Hindu, or just a provocateur. But to parents of preschoolers, the question itself was meaningless. We all had some notion of right and wrong that we sought to inculcate in our young barbarians; the only issue was how.

New research indicates parents may have a little underlying cooperation in that quest. I mean "little" literally. "The Moral Life of Babies," appearing in The New York Times Magazine last month, outlines extensive study by Yale University researchers into the degree that right and wrong is recognized by children as young as a few months. Surprisingly or not, overwhelming evidence points to a sense of morality either inborn or developing very early.

The study involved babies being exposed to mini-dramas, both live and on film. Two puppets or two shapes were shown either helping or hindering a third character, with the babies encouraged afterward to respond. The youngest subjects were capable of nothing but watching, so their response was measured by how long they looked. But 9- to 12-month-olds could register approval or disapproval in a variety of ways, including punishing the bad actors when they had an opportunity. "In the end," writes professor Paul Bloom, "we found that 6- and 10-month-old infants [in a given study] overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn't a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy."

The overwhelming response among the public: interesting. Writes Albert Mohler on his blog, "Does the fact that infants have an innate moral sense underline the importance of the fact that human beings are made in God's own image? It would certainly seem so." Meanwhile, a fan of atheist Richard Dawkins, commenting on Dawkins' website, draws quite another conclusion: "This will be a rather bitter blow to the religious who are convinced that humans are born sinful [and] incapable of telling right from wrong without moral guidance from the bible. . . . What a delicious laugh."

Not so fast. Paul says that even those without the Mosaic Law nonetheless have God's law written on their hearts, "while their conscience also bears witness" (Romans 2:14-15). While babies can't acknowledge the first table of the Law (loving God), the second table, about loving their neighbor, seems firmly fixed. Why?

The evolutionary bias assumed by the researchers can only shrug. Conceivably, a strong sense of group sympathy can help an individual survive in a harsh environment, but what explains the babies' apparent sympathy for animal puppets? Dr. Bloom admits that "the morality of contemporary humans really does outstrip what evolution could possibly have endowed us with." And there's another, rather obvious problem: "If children enter the world already equipped with moral notions, why is it that we have to work so hard to humanize them?"

That's the conundrum C.S. Lewis addresses in the first section of Mere Christianity: (a) everyone seems to have a sense of moral law, and (b) everyone breaks it. The little one who shows sorrow for a thwarted puppet will likely knock down a smaller child someday, or snatch a toy, or lie on a resumé, or cheat on his income tax, and natural selection will not justify him. Someone else will have to.

[LomanBill]

[All the teaching and training is to teach them to be good]

 

All the teaching?   Homosexual Activists would say the same thing... except they're busy trying teach away the "badness" of Christianity.

 

Maybe what you meant was, the intent of all  doctrinally sound Christian teaching and training is to teach them to be good?

 

Regardless,  evidently neither side is prepared to defend their morality based upon the self-evident truth observable in the real, natural, world.  

 

For some, science is a means for FREELY exploring Creation; and thanks to our American Founders - we can do so sans the coercive DESPOTISM of those who think otherwise.

 

"ALMIGHTY GOD HATH CREATED THE MIND FREE"

 

 

Maybe you should go read the writing on the wall for yourself.... before some religionist blows it up?

 

 

"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTER OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TOWARD EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"

 

 

Every Form - especially the kind manifested by tyrannical religionists.

 

Which is why Jefferson penned that quote in The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom.

 

 

Do you have a problem with religious freedom in general, or just with the freedom of those whose religion doesn't parrot yours?

[LomanBill]

>>So, you believe there are multiple creators?

No, but I believe religionists try to make Him reflect their own image.   Often, historically, through the despotic coercion of others.

>>Darwinian eugenics

Recognition of behavioral influence upon reproductive fitness is no more evil than the recognition of time dilation / constriction relative to E that is rendered self=evident to our FREE MIND via Einstein's Special Relativity.

 

Truth, self-evident from measurement of behavioral impacts upon reproductive fitness is neither good nor evil - it is simply an observable, self-evident, fact.  

Eugenics, and your usage of eugenics as a straw man, is an evil and manipulative application of that truth.   Just like religionists pretending to make the sun go dark, is evil, and manipulative, and selfish.

 

YOU, evidently would prefer such truths to not be explored/revealed at all - and THAT, is TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MEN.

>>It's really quite simple

As simple as increased incidence of congenital sexual dysfunctions like XXY and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome due to environmental stress?

And some were Eunuchs from birth...

[LomanBill]

>>Free will isn’t based on a physiological mechanism.

“Gave them Over” is an active, participatory statement. I think there’s more to it than just free will; especially since free will existed prior to their rejection of His Truth.

The recruitment of sexually dysfunctional individuals by the religious vestigial remains of the Roman Empire is also active, and participatory, and interesting.

I think the bee-keepers knew a thing or two about breeding more than just bees.

Evidently Androgen-Insensitive “Females”, due to the lack of testosterone response, were/are highly feminine in outward morphology and behavior... but, being XY, are sterile.

This would presumably have made them very attractive for the pimps in the Delphic, religious prostitution, district...

Which came first - the Eunuchs or the Ishtar Egg?

[Rockingham]

Cats are commonly thought of as solitary creatures but they are highly social as pets. They may defend their own against outsiders, but have a strong sense of hierarchy.

An older friend with four cats found that she had to carefully apportion the attention that she paid them in order of dominance. When she arrived home from work, her cats would all meet her at the door. She would then turn on the TV and sit down to the evening news and telephone calls. During that time, each cat would approach in turn in a set order for a few moments of affection.

If my friend did not keep to that ritual and properly order and apportion her time with each cat, they would get into fights with each other, pester her for attention or shun her, or otherwise misbehave. My friend recognized that her cats' hierarchy was their measure of what is fair and just. If she did not honor that hierarchy, she was seen by them as unfair and calling their hierarchy into doubt.

[wagglebee]

No, but I believe religionists try to make Him reflect their own image. Often, historically, through the despotic coercion of others.

You mean like when eugenicists manipulate Scripture to justify their carnage? I agree.

Recognition of behavioral influence upon reproductive fitness is no more evil than the recognition of time dilation / constriction relative to E that is rendered self=evident to our FREE MIND via Einstein's Special Relativity.

So, eugenics isn't that deadly? I have a feeling the billion or so people who have died as a direct result of it in the last century would probably disagree.

Truth, self-evident from measurement of behavioral impacts upon reproductive fitness is neither good nor evil - it is simply an observable, self-evident, fact.

We're not talking about revealed Truth, we are talking about satanic evil.

Eugenics, and your usage of eugenics as a straw man, is an evil and manipulative application of that truth.

It's exactly what you are advocating, you are simply renaming it "reproductive fitness" and not directly suggesting that the "unfit" be put to death.

YOU, evidently would prefer such truths to not be explored/revealed at all - and THAT, is TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MEN.

You're right, I would prefer that men not sin.

[little jeremiah]

I’m talking about very simple stuff.

Methinks you may be over-educated.

Ishtar? Roman Empire? Delphic oracles? “Religious” prostition?

I’m just talking about simple stuff. You sound as though you are highly enamored with the tinny sound of your own little intellect.

[LomanBill]

>>So, eugenics isn’t that deadly?

Observing, measuring, and recognizing the effects of behavior upon reproductive fitness is not “Eugenics”.

But you go ahead and keep clinging to that straw raft.

[wagglebee]

Observing, measuring, and recognizing the effects of behavior upon reproductive fitness is not “Eugenics”.

Yes, I know it is such a fine and lofty intellectual ideal and the participants will argue incessantly that they aren't practicing eugenics (after all, eugenics has such negative connotations).

And then one day, one of these fine, upstanding people who observe, measure and reproductive fitness will reach the conclusion that, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

[metmom]

..... but there is only One Creator.

Which is what the Founding Fathers recognized.

[metmom]

No. I’m not.

[wagglebee]

The secularists have worked quite hard to convince themselves that men like Jefferson and Franklin agreed with them and it is simply not true.

[LomanBill]

>>Ishtar? Roman Empire? Delphic oracles?
>>?Religious? prostition?

 

Ishtar?

Roman Empire?

Delphic Religious Prostitution?

 

It's called observable historical reality - all open, thanks to America's Founders, for the mind's eye to see... or not, as one chooses.

 

Got Morals and Dogma?   Try looking two miles North from here....

 

 

 

...you might find it.... or at least the book.

 

Just an American coinkidink?

 

 

[LomanBill]

[men like Jefferson...]

 

Well what did Jefferson mean when he said:

 

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

 

http://www.history1700s.com/etext/html/texts/jefferson/jeff1.txt

 

"insertion [of Jesus Christ] was rejected by the great majority"

 

Hmmm...

 

Quack, Waddle....  Secularist!

 

A nation of many Christians, perhaps - but a Christian Nation?  Evidently NOT.

[little jeremiah]

Universal moral absolutes are essentially the same in every religion.

And you can go play with your intellectual self in your own room. Your lofty intellect can invent elaborate castles in the air but cannot understand the simplest of self-evident truths.

[metmom]

The Declaration of Independence was not the sole work of one man.

You can debate till the cows come home about what Jefferson personally thought about God and it’s irrelevant because the others involved in the writing of the D of I knew what was meant and approved of it as it stood.

There is no doubt that the Creator to whom they were appealing who gave us our inalienable rights was the Creator found in Scripture. They didn’t live in a day of pluralism like we do.

Your tactics are those of the liberal leftists who are trying to destroy our Constitution and our government and our way of life.

[LomanBill]

>>Yes, I know it is such a fine and lofty intellectual ideal

Neither fine, nor lofty, nor evil.

No more so than measuring the amount of energy contained within an atom of plutonium.

Braaaaak Eugenics!
Braaaaak Eugenics!
Braaaaak Eugenics!

Perhaps the problem is your Parrot’s moral compass is so poorly calibrated that it, and you, can not distinguish between knowledge and its evil application?

[wagglebee]

Perhaps the problem is your Parrot’s moral compass is so poorly calibrated that it, and you, can not distinguish between knowledge and its evil application?

Oh, I can distinguish it just fine.

The Darwin family came up with eugenics.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. gave the green light to put their theories into action.

Monsters like Sanger and Hitler carried it out.

[LomanBill]

[Universal moral absolutes are essentially the same in every religion.]

 

 

Every religion? Universal? Hmmm.    What are the moral absolutes taught by Sabbateans...

... or the Êzidî?

 

 

 

I wonder what Jefferson would have said abour Mormonism.... if he'd been around after old Joe "the money digger" Smith, invented it....

 

Probably something like:

 

", hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; "

--The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786

 

 

Do ya think Jefferson might have thought that whole Mormon "Blood Atonement" thingee was a bit, ya know, TYRANICAL?

[LomanBill]

>>Oh, I can distinguish it just fine.

What edition of the NewSpeak Dictionary is your parrot using?

[LomanBill]

>>Monsters like Sanger and Hitler carried it out.

Is your parrot in favor of gun control as well as the suppression of knowledge... because “Monsters like Sanger and Hitler” used them for evil purposes?