Study: Babies help unlock the origins of morality

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

I'm not going to post any excerpts from the interview, but, in a nutshell, the babies were introduced to two puppets - one who behaves 'well' and another who behaves 'badly' - and then the babies were asked to either reward or punish the puppets with imaginary treats.  As it turns out, the babies overwhelmingly chose to reward the 'good' puppets and punish or withhold treats from the 'bad' ones.

What do others make of this?  I tend to be pessimistic about any study that tests how babies interact with anything involving race, morality, etc. since they're obviously not wired yet to make informed judgments about most things.  Obviously a puppet slamming a box shut is nowhere as complex as the way most real life dilemmas tend to be.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Well, isn't the point of testing things with babies that they don't yet have the wiring that we do? There's little other reason, in my opinion, for said tests to take place.

Too lazy to read article, as usual.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Well, isn't the point of testing things with babies that they don't yet have the wiring that we do? There's little other reason, in my opinion, for said tests to take place.

Too lazy to read article, as usual.

But like I said, I think that kind of wiring is necessary to make meaningful decisions.  All the babies know is that someone is slamming a box down.  Maybe the slamming of the box is bothersome to them.  In that case, the babies would, quite ironically, be acting selfishly in separating the 'good' from the 'bad.'  Also, most babies can probably distinguish inanimate objects from living things, so why take morality into account if no one else is getting 'hurt?'

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I don't think we can use infants to make pronouncements about most philosophical subjects.

[afleitch]

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but I don't think we can use infants to make pronouncements about most philosophical subjects.

Nor adults for that matter

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

I'm not going to post any excerpts from the interview, but, in a nutshell, the babies were introduced to two puppets - one who behaves 'well' and another who behaves 'badly' - and then the babies were asked to either reward or punish the puppets with imaginary treats.  As it turns out, the babies overwhelmingly chose to reward the 'good' puppets and punish or withhold treats from the 'bad' ones.

What do others make of this?  I tend to be pessimistic about any study that tests how babies interact with anything involving race, morality, etc. since they're obviously not wired yet to make informed judgments about most things.  Obviously a puppet slamming a box shut is nowhere as complex as the way most real life dilemmas tend to be.

What do I make of it?  That even the least mentally developed of humans recognize, on some level, good and bad, right and wrong, etc. without the necessity for man-made rules and the idea that morality comes from something "above" our capacity. 

[anvi]

There was a nice book written a couple of years ago by a UCal Berkeley child psychologist named Jennifer Gopnik called The Philosophical Baby that covers facets of learning and morality in children.  Not infants so much as children from about fourteen months to two years.  It's worth reading if you're interested in these things.