The Morality of Babies

In the article “The Moral Life of Babies” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?ref=homepage&src=me&pagewanted=all) , written by Yale professor Paul Bloom, he discusses the innate foundation of morality that babies seemingly have. As seen by previous blog posts, my infatuation with moralities’ origin in the human mind has been the subject of several postings, but I feel so compelled by the subject that I can not stop poking and prodding the subject in hopes of a satisfying answer . The article discusses how several tests were conducted on babies to better understand the cognitive skills of a babies’ mind. With the help of the several experiments carried out in this article, it has been concluded by Bloom that “humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see 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.” When I first read this, I felt quite comforted by this notion of a basic moral sense that all babies have. It has been quite common to assume that babies were sheer bundles of ignorance, failing to harbor an understanding on the basic rules of the universe, but Bloom insist that babies have expectations rooted in intellect, which can be used to learn and comprehend information at an alarmingly fast rate. Although morality is relative to the culture one functions in, there seems to be very bare-bones morality recognition by babies. In several experiments, babies understood when actions considered wrong were committed, and identified the negative occurrences as anomalies to what was expected and accepted. The article focuses heavily on compassion, which seems to be a key factor in shaping morality as babies get older. Our empathy towards others can be amplified as we get older, resulting in the virtues associated with excellence. While babies do not have the higher moral order that adults develop as they develop their intellect, they do have a distinct temperament in regards to morals that serves as the groundwork for the future. “As David Hume argued, mere rationality can’t be the foundation of morality, since our most basic desires are neither rational nor irrational. “ ’Tis not contrary to reason,” he wrote, “to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.” To have a genuinely moral system, in other words, some things first have to matter, and what we see in babies is the development of mattering.”Babies fail to make decisions of morality due to some rationalization in the mind, but based on pure emotion of instincts. Decisions for babies boil down to the simplicity of natural desires. What a baby deems as important will be the foundation of how they harvest their moral reason. A person’s way of thinking is a direct product of his/her inclination towards morality. “Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness.” These initial reactions are then acted upon by society to continuously shape our thought process. Then when our ethical guidelines are set in place based on our recognitions, we can transcend our minds by implementing the intellectual virtues that we must learn.

Friendship

Reading Aristotle’s description of friendship has really opened my eyes to the kinds of relationships I partake in. It seems rather clear to me that most of my friendships are based on a frail foundation, with me unfortunately contributing to a minimal amount of meaningful relationships.

I have found that friendships of utility are aplenty in my life since I am a young, ambitious college student, whom is attempting to further my career and livelihood. Not only is it imperative to have some sort of friendship with teachers and fellow peers, it is a downright necessity. Building relationships with teachers is necessary in order to have a full understanding of what is required to be successful in a given class. Furthermore, these teachers can even help me by writing me a recommendation for medical school that could better help me convince others of my abilities. Teachers have a wide range of utility. Having multiple friends within a classroom setting has also proven to be very useful because it allows for you to bounce ideas off your fellow classmates and gain information that you had failed to collect. College education is a difficult practice with questions abound, therefore it is helpful to have friends that I can confide in and question. Friendships of utility are further observed in confines of the various jobs I have had. When you are spending eight plus hours with a group of people, it is to your advantage to enjoy the company of those you are working with. As a Pre-med student I have only been able to work during the summer at anyplace that is willing to hire me, which has put me in a range of interesting situations. For example, last summer I worked at a car dealership where I was surrounded by a wide array of unique people. For the most part, I was forced to have friendly relationships with my coworkers, whom I vastly disagreed with on their decisions and actions. I was friends with most of these people for the sole purpose of my comfort. The relationships aforementioned were clearly friendships of utility because when I no longer was in a state of need from these people, our friendship swiftly dissipated.

Friendships of use have been prevalent in my life, but I have found that relationships for pleasure have covered a bulk of my friendships as well. When you ask your friends why they are indeed your friend, it seems that they tend to give some explanation as to why they enjoy being around you. They will stroke your ego by complimenting you, saying you make them laugh or compliment your ability to entertain them entertaining, but in all reality they give a self-serving reason as to why they are your friend. It is no secret that people are intrinsically narcissistic, so doesn’t it make sense that your friends are in a friendship with you for their own personal reasons? Friendships of pleasure are abundant in my life, but I believe a minute amount of these relationships are the causation of friendships of the good.

After reading Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics I became dismayed to come to the realization that I maybe (emphasis on maybe) had one or two friendships of the good. I began to wonder if I would even qualify to have this sort of relationship since I have yet to fully harness virtue. With the previous fact set aside, I have concluded that there are a very few amount of relationships that I can say I truly value and care for the well being of the other person in the relationship. It takes years and much needed effort to evolve a relationship from one of pleasure into one of the good. To get to the point where you can relate to and understand a person on such a level that you set aside personal motive for the other person takes a commitment that is unparalleled. Friendships of the good are a rare occurrence, but pay truly satisfying dividends. I will continue to keep in mind Aristotle’s assessment on friendship so that I can develop friendships that are the essence of good.

My Rant on Being

After reviewing for the final and re-reading material on the Sophists I felt compelled to address the Sophist movement from Being, that previous philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes were so concerned with, towards the commodity that is known as humanity. My interest for the subject of the “arche” has always run thin, which can explain my lack of blog posting on these Pre-Socratic Philosophers. I never felt any drive to critique a philosophy that was primarily focused on water, because it seems so nonsensical and irrelevant. The composition of the world and natural laws of the universe are obviously an important knowledge to have, but I dreaded that so many of the philosophers we have studied defined life in such a way that neglects the miraculous being of humanity. Maybe I do not fancy physics for the same reasons that I do not fancy the philosophies such as Thales; the study of matter should take a backseat to obtaining insight on living a happy and virtuous life. Human beings have been reduced to mere entities and compositions of various other things, when I think the prominence of a much more practical philosophy should be emphasized to a greater extent. As mentioned in my introduction blog post, I have always felt the need to take a much more pragmatic concern with philosophy. A philosophy that it can be applied to my life in ways that is relevant to me in my current situation. It is enjoyable to read philosophy such as Aristotle’s, which lay out a precise formula to lead a life that is in pursuance of excellence. We can examine the natural laws of the universe only so far, but the examination of humanities’ cognitive abilities and autonomy can have a much more profound effect. Life is relative, therefore man’s perceptions are reliant on his/her daily endeavors and the focal point of one’s life should be on his/her affinity to lead a life with a strict sense of diligence and discernment so that we can live in a harmonious unity with those around us.

Deviation

In the recent weeks I have been heavily reflecting upon the nature of virtues and whether they are inherent or taught to one by his/her experiences. As seen by my previous blog entries, I have come to the conclusion that people are born with predispositions and a varying affinity for human excellence, with society shaping the majority of our perceptions. The more and more I think about it and the more people I ask about concerning the subject matter, it has become rather apparent to me that the many people believe we are conditioned by our culture to a great extent.
Last week in Political Science my teacher had mentioned how desensitized our modern society has become. He referenced the TV show Samantha Who?, which is about a successful businesswomen who has developed amnesia. As she begins to live her life with ignorance to how she used to live, she becomes dismayed to learn how she treated those around her. She then tries to compensate for her previous morally questionable actions by treating those she had wronged with a newly found niceness. The protagonist of this story, Samantha, had become so heavily influenced by outside forces that she had greatly deviated from the values that had been originally instilled upon her.
This TV show is a testament to how impactful the limitations of society are on people. People conform to the general consensus or the skewed view of those we admire and look to imitate. We see the actions of these around us, and then act in accordance. It is as simple as the cliché “Monkey see, monkey do.” If enough people agree on a subject, the majority of people will eventually fall in line.
It is ironic that I referenced a TV show to display my point, when so many TV shows actually deceitfully calibrate people’s moral compass towards ill-advised guidelines. I have no doubt that Plato would dub Television as the modern day Homer. Increasingly large amounts of the people own a television and are convinced to act a certain way by the fictional characters, whose mere purpose is to entertain us.
Furthermore, in the article “Point of View”, previously discussed in the last blog post, I though it was interesting when the student reminds the professor “of the willingness of the leaders of German and Italian universities to embrace Nazi and Fascist idea.” These wonderfully brilliant people had been inhibited by society to readily implement these radical ideals into their way of thinking. They began to define what was a just action based on the general consensus. It is scary to analyze how adversely one can be affected by the ridiculous ideas of a few powerful men. One can truly distort how they view life to align with his/her ideas that one would previously oppose.

Fighting a Losing Battle?

In the article “Point of View” by Robert Coles the disparity between intellect and character is discussed. A Harvard professor gives a detailed account of a student of his whom had discovered the unfortunate truth about morality; just because one has knowledge and understanding of morality, does not mean that they will necessarily put to use these teachings in their daily actions.
Students due not utilize the morality taught in class primarily because of humanities’ inherent fear of change. The exploration of a new territory is noticeably met with unwillingness due to apprehension. People develop a comfort with how they life their life through habituation, therefore it is only normal for there to be difficulty when attempting to act justly in accordance with one’s intellect. I can easily identify with a student whom attains a plethora of knowledge concerning morality and ethics, then simply ignores it. It would be rather easy to focus on getting a good grade in my Classical Philosophy class without vigorously examining the ideas in the various works we have studied and actually applying them. I have developed my way of thinking throughout my last twenty years, therefore there is a certain level of reassurance with how I live my life. My morality is deeply ingrained within me, so how can I be expected to change my very being after reading a few insightful collections of works? I must readily question my deepest beliefs and ethics that I have used as guidelines to live my life, so that I can slowly improve upon them. One must have an active acceptance to change their autonomy in order to employ the dynamically constructed intellectual philosophies they have been so graciously taught.
Moreover, I find it interesting that schools have attempted to make the connection between character and intellect in the feeblest of ways. Now, Schools focus less upon integrating ethics into ones life, and more upon having students regurgitating a select bit of information for a grade. School has become systematic. As the professor in the article discussed, there is a common sentiment among schools that morality is acquired at home rather than in the confines of academia. I do not think schools can make major leeway in shaping a majority of student’s morality, so I do not really fault them for their reluctance. Small victories take place in bridging the gap between intellect and morality with simple exercises such as this very blog I am writing for my classical philosophy class. It allows me to try and relate the philosophy I am taught in class with the daily happenings of my life. By contemplating how the teachings of these philosophers can have a direct correlation with my life, I am more likely to merge by intellect with my character.
It is such a steep mountain to climb because our morality and how we act is manipulated at molded by so many outside forces, so any school trying to link moral action and intellect has a magnitude of competition. Realistically, schools tend to have a minimal impact on people’s morality, but it seems that a true change in creed only occurs when one either is actively looking to refine their beliefs, or when one has experienced an impactful experience that resonates with them and forces them to change.

The Magnificence of Understanding

When questioned in class about the most beautiful thing or idea I could think of, I can not deny that I had trouble coming up with my ideal notion of beauty. When given the entirety of a complete thirty seconds to come up with my one perfect description of beauty, I was not as eloquent in my retort as I would have preferred. In the last several days I have been pondering my off-the-cuff answer as well as other’s views on the most beautiful thing they can imagine, in my attempt to fully dissect beauty.

I found that a majority of people typically tend to define beauty in the physical natures of the world. As mentioned by Dr. Bowery, people tend to say things such as the sun, the stars, mountains, and rainbows. No doubt all of these things must be viewed for their natural and minimalistic beauty, yet I can not bring my self to put full stock in notion that aesthetics are the most beautiful thing known to man. It honestly feels quite superficial.

Moreover, I fear that many people have retreated to their fortress of the divine when stating that god is the single, most beautiful thing they can imagine. The perception of a single transcendent, allegedly loving god obviously sets people up to believe that god is the essence of beauty. Since I am completely ignorant of the real god (if he/she/it exist) and so is everyone else, I am compelled to deem god irrelevant. It is unfortunately not in my power to rule god as beautiful or not, considering I do not have the power to truly understand god (if there is one).

In class I responded “understanding” because I needed a word that was rather ambiguous, but could encompass all of my ideas of beauty. I knew that by using “understating” as my definition I would be able to give multiple interpretations for this one word. In retrospect there can be two different definitions to “understanding” that I find to be vital components of my idea of beauty.

Firstly, one can have an insightful understanding on the interworking of the world, allowing them to essentially be masters of philosophy. Socrates, I am sure would be relatively happy with this train of thought. The understanding of a healthy union between virtue and intellect enamors humans to procure the highest beauty.

Furthermore, I said “understanding” when thinking about the understanding that is necessary for a deep emotional relationship that one partakes in with another human being. The most intimate relationships are between people with a profound level of comfort emotionally and mentally. In a relationship, one must understand the other person’s perceptions and decisions, so that when that person makes a mistake the other person can put their partner’s mind at ease. All humans are judgmental no matter how hard they try not to be, but by having understanding for someone, you make them realize that they will not be ostracized for the faults they make, but loved for the person they are.

I may be rather self-involved when defining beauty as a solely human experience, but vanity is fundamental to all humans and I believe it really must be for people to survive. Everybody’s egotism levels of at a different plateau, but to some extent it must be undoubtedly necessary. Although my explanation may be biased, after thinking more into my idea that “understanding” is the most beautiful thing in the universe, I am rather pleased with my answer that I gave in class.

My Struggle with Morality

Whilst watching the brilliantly crafted film “Shutter Island” directed by Martin Scorsese, I became interested in the conversation between Leonardo Dicaprio’s character, Teddy, and John Carroll Lynch’s character, Deputy Warden McPherson. The following conversation took place between the two, after Deputy McPherson had finally met up with Teddy, whom had been searching the island for clues regarding the intentions of the mental facility:

Deputy McPherson: God loves violence.
Teddy: I, I hadn’t noticed.
Deputy McPherson: Ha sure you have, why else would there be so much of it? It’s in us. It’s what we are. God gave us violence to wage in his honor.
Teddy: I thought God gave us moral order.
Deputy McPherson: There is no moral order as pure as this storm. There is no moral order at all. There’s just this: “Can my violence conquer your violence?”
Teddy: I’m not violent.
Deputy McPherson: Yes you are. You’re as violent as they come. I know this because I’m as violent as they come. With the constraints of society were lifted and if I was all that stood between you and a meal you would crack my skull with a rock and eat my meaty parts. Wouldn’t ya? Naehring thinks your harmless and can be controlled but I know different.
Teddy: You don’t know me.
Deputy McPherson: Oh I know you. We’ve known each other for centuries. If I was to sink my teeth into your eye right now, would you be able to stop me before I blinded you?
Teddy: Give it a try.
Deputy McPherson: That’s the spirit.

Deputy McPherson closely resembles the “Sophist” in his belief that ethical values are solely dependent upon the common values set in place by society. For McPherson there is no moral order, and in the absence of a moral authority put in place by society, each person will obey their instincts to survive. I admittedly believe that a strong argument can be made to strike down the notion of an absolute truth within all people. The idea that humans are a blank slate when they are born, and then trained to have a select amount of beliefs has always been tempting to me, yet seemingly still incomplete.

I am bothered by the idea that there is no intrinsic moral order that everyone with functioning facilities will share. There must be a fundamental set of principles that we as rational beings conclude to be imperative to life. I imagine at one point in the human history, people’s mere goal was to survive on a world that was in constant fluctuation. Essentially whatever means that were necessary to survive were accepted. Violence was certainty necessary for humans whom lacked social order to survive. As beings with an unparalleled intellect, a general set of rules concerning morality must have been mutually developed over time. The dynamics of human relationships are heavily reliant on the relational aspects between humans, therefore order is necessary. Humans were equipped with rationality, to have an eventual development of a common morality.

All people are born with preferences. A natural way of thinking and decision making are basic values that every person has. A definite moral order was not set in place from the beginning, with everyone accepting a finite list of things that were and were not morally acceptable. There is a certain level of moral order that has not been tapped into until humans were able to synergize modern intellect, and morality. As humans evolved intellectually, they saw the need to put in place moral order so that we could live in a much more unified way. Now when humans are born into a time where there is a set of rules and guidelines one must follow to function in society, they have the choice to follow these rules or not, all depending on their preference. What is conceived as morally permissible is different for each person depending on their own natural inclination, but now it is also subject to the limitations of society.

Virtue can’t be taught in the sense that our preferences can’t be taught to us. Once morality is taught to us on a very basic level, we make decisions to follow it or not based on preference, but once we make our decisions having been informed of it, there is usually no going back. You are born with a perspective on things that I believe can allow you to be moral or not.