Toddler Morality: Bred in the Bone

Science is at it again trying to prove something many of us already know: we are born with an inherent sense of morality. Of course this doesn't jive with many people who believe we are evil from birth (Gen 8:21) but the article on baby morality I came across (via good ole' RNS) is still quite intriguing (albeit a bit dated). Evidence is now showing that we are born with a rudimentary sense of right and wrong although Paul Bloom, one of the researchers of the study, states that socialization is still important because "the sense of right and wrong that they naturally possess diverges in important ways from what we adults would want it to be." The difficulty of researching the morality of babies is due to their inability to communicate clearly and their limited behavior. Researchers have found that if they were to measure their 'looking time', how long they stare at an object of interest, they can discover a window into the mind of a baby. I found it mind blowing that infants have a naïve understanding of physics, mathematics, and even psychology. So what about a naïve understanding of morality?

"Scientists know that certain compassionate feelings and impulses emerge early and apparently universally in human development. These are not moral concepts, exactly, but they seem closely related. One example is feeling pain at the pain of others."

Many parents may have noticed babies crying at the sound of other babies crying or attempt to comfort the distressed baby by gently touching or handing over a toy. As a referee for my own two rascals I admit I might have, as well as most other parents, taken credit in the past for teaching my kids how to "play nice" with other toddlers but now that I think about it they have displayed moral actions, regarding social interactions, which seemed almost instinctual. But morality is more complex than a basic form of compassion.

"Babies and toddlers might not know or exhibit any of these moral subtleties. Their sympathetic reactions and motivations — including their desire to alleviate the pain of others — may not be much different in kind from purely nonmoral reactions and motivations like growing hungry or wanting to void a full bladder. Even if that is true, though, it is hard to conceive of a moral system that didn’t have, as a starting point, these empathetic capacities. As David Hume argued, mere rationality can’t be the foundation of morality, since our most basic desires are neither rational nor irrational."

Take a look at some of the experiments (using puppets!) which led to Bloom's findings.



Do infants come into the world with an innate sense of right and wrong, and if they do what is the Source? Is it just a product of biological evolution and if so how does that affect how we identify ourselves within a religious context? A baby's morality is primitive but it is the foundation in which we build our society, our culture. We just have to ask ourselves if we're helping or hindering the morality bred into all of us. Is it too far fetched to imagine that our neighbor whom we share the same bones, the same breath, the same dust is not also attempting to instill a refined sense of morality into their children based on their culture? Do we not share the same goals, the same hopes, and the same aspirations for the next generation?

The article concludes with the arguments as to whether this simple morality was designed by God or just a product of evolution. Regardless where we might stand on the issue the evidence still states that babies don't begin life as amoral creatures. Is it not going against nature, or God for the believers, to teach or children to be unjust to our neighbors? Is it not "unnatural" for us to teach our children tribal loyalty and divisive views which creates out-groups and inequality? Have we forgotten our origin, our simple notions of right and wrong or are we just ignoring them?