Posted on 06/09/2010 6:20:24 AM PDT by 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.
>> Leave what belongs to God to God and
>>what belongs to Man to Man.
No doubt the God-Emperors of Egypt, Babylon, Rome... and Gweat Bwitton, would agree.
Those pesky 1st/2nd amendments are such a bothersome thorn in the side of our would be owners.
Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Ba’al
—The Who?
Ba’al being a Hebrew word for lord, owner, master... possessor.
[voting democRat is simply hiding your sins of theft and coveting behind the “legitimacy” of a majority vote.]
The same could be said of being an obedient corporate employee.
It’s all good as long as the bottom line is black, right, Mr. Beale?
You missed the point, the Bible does not say that their sinful nature prevents people from telling right from wrong. It only prevents only from doing right over wrong.
We know what’s right, we do the wrong any way,
>>Of course its in genes. Everything is.
Potential may be in the genes - but the exploitation of that potential is more likely a social product than a genetic one.
At what point does the bee become distinct from the hive... in Deseret or elsewhere?
Leaving Earth will take care of itself; but unfortunately, many religionists spend their entire lives as bee-hive slaves in anticipation of the exit.
I think our American Founders intended we “leave” the hive better than we found it...
Sort of like the BSA. Be Prepared, and always be conscious of leaving the camping spot in better condition than it was before you slept in it.
>>We know what’s right,
The Mormons who dispensed the doctrine of Blood Atonement upon non-Mormons certainly thought they did.
I guess you could through in the Popes of the early Catholic church in with the God Emperors of old.
Vision of the Anointed was Sowell’s polemic.
In “Conflict”, he’s more balanced, examining what he calls the “unconstrained vision” vs the constrained or tragic vision of mankind. It was really amazing how he wrote it with no bias toward one or the other as “right”.
However, he DOES assert that your solutions will invariably flow from these base assumptions.
By watching the nightly news.
Recent studies — and generations of experience — show that many animals have a rudimentary sense of fair play and equity.
I agree. Plus I love those Halos they borrowed from their Pagan breathern.
I think an example of that shows up in the cases where a female animal will “adopt” and nurse a baby from another species.
I had two cats once. One was the most unfriendly animal I have ever been around. That cat was my xwife’s. The other cat I called Punkin Kitty. Real sweetie. I got from the pound. Born to a feral mother. Was like a little puppy. The other cat(Puff) use to boss it around.
However if another cat came around Punkin kitty, Puff was on it like lighting. Taking care of Punkin Kitty. Really interesting behavior.
John
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
"Those who control the past control the past control the future... those who control the present control the past"--George Orwell
>>Plus I love those Halos they borrowed from their Pagan breathern.
Here comes the Sun(day), doo doo doo doo.
7 day week, Sun moon, mercury, venus, mars,jupiter, saturn.
Sorry, if you're trying to sell moral subjectivism, try the next house.
Anyone who enters a debate just to twist what someone else has said and cast dispersions at them isn’t really interested in an honest exchange of ideas.
I don’t know what your problem is, but it’s certainly clear that you have them.
Have you ever read The Peace Child, by Don Richardson?
Or his other book, Eternity in Their Hearts?
Both excellent, well written books that deal with much of what is being discussed here.
The headhunting cannibalistic tribes of Indonesia didn't treat each other very well and didn't do much to improve their society, but still managed to survive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.