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.
It is the parents responsibility to set rules and guidelines, to teach right from wrong and to make sure the child knows the difference between good and evil. Children especially very young children cannot be relied upon to learn these ideals and values on their own. Very young children have minds that are very pliable and easily led and that is why instruction from responsible parents is key and important.
Of course its in genes. Everything is.
"How about I punch you in the nose?"
"Don't do that - that would be wrong."
"So you do know. Not that hard now, is it?"
i have trouble accepting that because a child reacts a certin way, that they are expressing a moral opinion. they might simply be agreeing with the general mood - go along to get along, or might be connecting kindness to their mother’s care, something that they may be famliar with, not necessarily attach moral values to.
kids are extremely perceptive - they can tell whether they are supposed to like or detest something. they pick up on subtle signals.
The author needs to cite a reference in the Bible that says everything he just said.
Born with a sinful nature, yes but not incapable of telling right from wrong. A little bit of truth combined with a lie is a lie.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I would have told the gentleman that I would be glad to discuss at length his concerns at a later point, but to bring up such a serious and hypothetical series of questions was inappropriate for the setting.
I decided 500 would cover everything since my 2nd grade teacher always punished us by telling us to write something 500 times.
Later I learned to "pick a priest"...the one that no matter what you did, you got 3 Our Fathers and 3 Hail Mary's for penance.
There’s a difference between wrong, harmful and protective. Children need instruction.
Romans 2:14-15
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
Following God’s laws (written on our hearts) is the best way to remain safe and under protection.
As I teach my kids - when you’re under my authority, you’re under my protection. Step outside of that authority and you’re likely to get hurt. The Law is for your own good.
Coveting, for instance, leads to dissatisfaction, discontent, unhappiness, and often to further sins like theft.
I believe it’s all in the way God designs/creates each of us, in order to fulfil His plan.
Just like our sexual preferences?
Outside of biblical references, how would one be able to tell that we are born with a sinful nature?
Yes, initially.
It reminds me of a story I heard about Abe Lincoln once who was arguing that basic point with a preacher while riding on a train. The train stops to take on water and Lincoln noticed some piglets struggling to get out of a mud hole made deeper by the dripping water from the rail siding tank. Without hesitation, Lincoln gets out, extracts the piglets from the mud and saves them from a probable death by drowning or suffocation.
His traveling companion exclaims "You just proved my point. You had nothing to gain, yet your innate goodness caused you to save those piglets!"
"On the contrary," responded Lincoln, "it was not my innate goodness at all. Just my experience as a farmer knowing what would happen to those piglets had I failed to act."
From the first time you lie yourself out of a paddling.
Thank you for refuting what the author said.
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.