Friday, April 5, 2013

The Morality of Babes

“Objective morality is revealed to us by God” --this is as close to a Christian universal as I can get. A question I often ask is: how do we know what actions are objectively right and which are objectively wrong. I get one of two answers: (a) that the Word of God is spelled out in the Bible and we should follow it’s guidelines for morality, or (b) that we are born with a moral compass that shows us God’s Nature. The first answer is an assertion that their holy book isn’t just a good idea, it’s the law--and that’s all it is. Claims can be made about anything when there is no expectation to back them up. The second answer is more interesting, and one in which I have gained extra insight in the last couple years.

I’m the father of twins, a boy and a girl. It certainly seems like they were not born with morality. They are born to suck. It’s wired into their little brains to find a boob or bottle and suck vigorously. When they get a little older, their nature is to crawl. Before they have any business crawling, I saw them constantly attempting to flip over and push themselves up. The first moral act I witnessed was decidedly immoral by adult standards. The boy hit the girl and the girl quick returned fire. There was escalation until it became an arms race mired with theft and snitching. I can chalk up a lot of what I observed to instinct, but I never observed a sense of right conduct.

Granted, this is hardly scientific. An anecdotal account with a sample size of two shouldn’t convince you of anything...but my wife specifically said no experiments on the children, so it’s all I got. This is my experience. There is going to be a long road ahead teaching my kids to morally socialize. I imagine I could use the good bits of the bible as examples of good behavior, but why cherry pick? I’d much rather draw on my own experience. Wish me luck.

18 comments:

  1. If anyone's looking for a solid account of how the mind and morality of a child develops, you should check out Bruce Hood's 'The Self Illusion'. It's an interesting account of how our imagine of the self develops throughout our lives, and Hood's a psychologist who specialises in the minds of infants so he knows his shit on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds up my alley, I'll have to check it out.

      Delete
  2. "my wife specifically said no experiments on the children"

    Noted, I'll make sure to conduct all of my experiments in secret

    ReplyDelete
  3. "my wife specifically said no experiments on the children"

    Rats. So, no superpowers for the kids?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I can put them on performance-enhancing Gerber...

      Delete
  4. There's actually quite a bit of research in the hopper now about how morality works and where it came from. We are born with it, but it has nothing to do with "God's nature" -- it's an evolved trait like all our other traits. I found this video enlightening.

    It's true that small children show little sign of moral behavior, but humans have various traits which are clearly inborn but don't manifest themselves until certain stages of development are reached, such as the sex drive or the ability to talk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know the "survival of the most altruistic" aspects of evolution, and I'm sure there is truth to it, but from a strictly personal experience basis, I wouldn't guess that so far.

      I'm well aware this is a fluff piece, if you want hard science, you'll have to look elsewhere for now. :-)

      Delete
  5. Good luck with the twins! I expect you will learn way more than you bargained for without any specific forbidden experiments.

    My brother and I were not twins...but we never developed "good" morals in our relationship. We bickered all our lives because he assumed since he was born first, he was the king. Well, I figured I was the crown queen with just as many rights. Never did settle that disagreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I see a life-long sibling rivalry forming already.

      Delete
  6. Great topic. Here are two articles, both about Yale's baby studies:

    NY Times (2010) - babies may have moral sense
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all

    Science Daily (2012) - babies may not have moral sense
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120815093230.htm

    Neither answer would resolve the question of what we mean by objective or subjective morality. Just saying. This is a topic I plan to deal with at length on my own blog, eventually. Just starting a long part on 'Self' now. I am definitely glad you are back to writing.

    I second Ockham's ref to The Self Illusion. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looking forward to reading your stuff.

      Delete
    2. Not using Google + yet, still learning what it does. Not on Facebook either. Any thoughts about advantages of Google + ? That seems the way to go for bloggers anyway?

      Back in 2009 I sort of gave up on the web because so many features just seemed to fail or get all entangled (screwed up) - that is still the case, but much less so today I think.

      Opening Cheers - and go publish a comment (anyone) on Oerter's Supernatural Times Two post! It's a very interesting post for atheists and theists alike (imho). Closing Cheers.

      Delete
    3. C. E... and anyone else interested...I spent time adding "friends" on Google+ and now have over 4,000 and many more have added me, I can't keep up with them anymore and only do it occasionally. It doesn't matter to me who they are, if they want to be my "cyber friend" I add them, and yes, some have popped in to "chat" and quickly propositioned me to "bring them to my country" but that only gives me a chance to make up a zany insanity plea.

      I do go there occasionally and post photos I have taken of local scenery and my art and usually get good responses. I don't get many comments on my blog post from them, but 20 minutes after I post a new blog, I almost always have over 50-75 hits quickly and I've had over 400 this week so far. I know they come from Google+ from all over the world because I have a stat-counter and the same ones keep comeing back. I seem to be "big" in Japan right now. Doesn't matter to me they don't comment, though I do appreciate my friends like you who do. Just knowing they come to read me over and over is rewarding. You should try it! Now I'll go check out Oerter's. :D

      Delete
    4. I like Google+, I'm really involved in their communities right now. (as mentioned in a recent post.) If you want into the "Atheist Blogger" group, let me know. It's a good resource to share ideas and cross promote.

      Delete
    5. @Grundy
      @Anna Maria,
      I have created a Google+ profile: c emerson, philosophy, hobbiest - no pic yet
      I would like to learn, how?
      acquaintance, friend, special circle??

      Grundy, I would like to join one of your atheist circles (I profess no orientation and intend none, because I am writing a 'live book' via my blog, Ideas are Physical ... just saying this up front)

      Anna Maria, what else can I learn (I see that you have written an eBook; I plan some ePublishing; any e-circles that you can include me in? this is to help me learn some ropes ... just saying this up front too )

      Thanks ....

      Delete
    6. @Grundy
      @Anna Maria
      I just created a special circle named "Bloggers" and "added" Anna Maria - to give me a way to start - but I have no idea what a Special Circle even is ...

      Any Blogger who wants into that circle is welcome.

      Grundy, I could not identify your moniker on Google+ ... so couldn't "add" you ... yet

      Delete
  7. Good luck! I think teaching from experience will go a lot further for the kids in the long run!

    ReplyDelete