The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

The Morality of Babies

5 Comments

July 2, 2010 by Kathy McManus

Cry like a baby.
Sleep like a baby.
Make moral judgments like a baby?

Psychologist Paul Bloom, of Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, says surprising new research shows that babies have a “moral life.” Writing in The New York Times, Bloom says a growing body of evidence “suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life,” and that babies show “glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment, and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.”

The new research is a far cry from the first psychological assessments centuries ago, when a baby’s mental life was deemed “one great blooming, buzzing confusion.” The key for researchers was realizing that babies control the movement of their eyes, which are “a window to the baby’s soul,” as Bloom puts it.

“Babies probably have no conscious access to moral notions,” he says, “no idea why certain acts are good or bad. They respond on a gut level.” Much like adults, Bloom concludes. “We’re not otherwise that different from babies—our moral feelings are often instinctive.”

5 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• July 11, 2010 by Paul Woodford

  The Times article was very interesting but I think the conclusions these researchers are reaching have a lot more to do with their definitions than with the data. The responses that researchers have noted in infants seems remarkably similar to the "Clever Hans" scenario in which a horse seemed to be able to do math but turned out to be responding to almost imperceptible stimuli from the humans observing it.

  Most people would not consider this type of reaction to indicate morality; morality implies considered choices about actions or their consequences. These choices are related to socially constructed definitions of right and wrong. There are no universally agreed upon definitions of "good and evil."

  Until they find a way to test infants that have never seen another human being these conclusions will be untenable.

  Reply

  • September 3, 2011 by Ret Miles

    "There are no universally agreed upon definitions of 'good and evil.'" That would be more relevant if "good and evil" were defined by popular election. I agree that definitions matter, though.

    If you review the writings of people like Cicero (ancient pagan), ancient Jewish and Christian sacred texts, Aquinas (medieval Christian), Locke and Blackstone (protestant), Bastiat (Catholic), and Rand (atheist), it becomes clear that a straightforward definition of moral good and evil (as opposed to good and bad physical events like life-giving rain or death-taking floods) is possible, useful, necessary and relevant.

    While there should probably be more to it than what I will now say, a working definition is as follows:

    • If you serve someone and don't violate someone's natural rights in the process, that's good.

    • If you violate someone's natural rights (including God's), that's evil.

    Sometimes I think we make these things harder than they really are.

    Reply

• July 15, 2010 by Splash

  There's nothing nothing I could say but......... wow

  Reply

• November 18, 2011 by Josephine

  I agree with you, Ret. You see, when people say something or someone is evil each person has their own personal definition of what is evil. Same goes for people who say something or someone is good. The difinitions can vary from person to person. You can even look in multiple dictionaries and you will see the diferences. Now, if you and another person had a debate about the true definition of good or evil, then you will both come to the same conclusion. Good is: Respecting someone's natural rights as a living, breathing person Evil is: Violating someones natural rights as a living, breathing person. But if you base the meaning of these words on actions, then you have a true debate right there. For example: a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Some people tell her that she should get an abortion, for these reasons: Who would want to look at their child and see their rapist's features (eyes, nose, mouth), and who would want to let the rapist's genes out into the world; who would want to spread the "its okay to rape and be violent" genes? We already have enough bad gene pools out in the world, you wanna add to it? Some people say that she should put the baby up for adoption, for this reason: its immoral to kill a living thing (Me: the baby isn't technically living until it has its first breath).

  Now, you see, each person has there own definition. Some people believe abortion is "immoral" and therefore evil. Some people think its a good idea because its an escape from a, probablely, "evil" child.

  Reply

• December 2, 2011 by rachel

  Ret, you are wasting your breath. Do you think they have any clue what wisdom lies within the ancient texts you have mentioned? This generation feels so entitled that they actually believe that they don't even NEED to crack them open to enlighten themselves. Why? Because they believe that they are already enlightened. Their kindergarten teachers and mommies told them so. What other kinds of comments do you expect from a generation that is willing to excuse the behavior at Penn State? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. My bad. They don't "excuse" it, but these things ARE complicated you see. Evil is just in the eyes of the beholder, it's complicated depending on what prism you look through it. So if when someone who is a rock star or a football star does something bad, like rape a child, it's not the same as if George Bush did it. It all depends of the meaning of the word, "is" is. Or their own personal meaning of "child" or "rape, rape". So give it up Ret, you are just a bumpkin quoting ancient wisdom. They watch The View and got an A in their humanities class. They have it all figured out.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.