http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7103804.stm
Babies were shown a video where a character is trying to climb up a hill. Another character comes along and pushes it down the hill. Next, another character pushes it up the hill. 14 out of the 16 babies chose the character with the higher morales - the character that tried to help.
We can agree that these infants don't understand God at this age, but they still have morals.
What do you think of this research?
2007-12-09 07:06:16 · 14 answers · asked by :) 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
shallow.....
2007-12-09 12:37:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
This is not the only research that has been performed along these same lines. It is true that you do not need religion or a belief in a deity to have morals or to choose ethical behavior. The last that I read stipulated that these decisions were ingrained into our very DNA. When the situation does not involve us directly, we cheer for the good guy, the one who is helping other human beings. When the situation does involve us, we cheer for the option which preserves our own life and happiness.
Peace,
Jenn
2007-12-09 07:13:46 · answer #2 · answered by jenn_smithson 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We see this as a moral issue, but it is also possible to just look at how it might help a species of animal survive. A species is generally helped by a certain amount of Samaritan benevolence, rather than a cutthroat attitude towards its own kind. And this does not bode so well for human beings, considering that we have many manifestations of internecine warfare, crime, theft, etc. A little more altruism looks to be in order. :-)
2007-12-11 09:25:44 · answer #3 · answered by DinDjinn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who really believed we did?
Religion has proved over and over that morals have little to do with it, It's all about Dogma.
Good one keep the lights on.
FTWR
Note** Though it is good to have scientific backing, you only really need to look around to the hypocrisy performed and accepted by religion!**
2007-12-09 12:43:15 · answer #4 · answered by Sly Fox [King of Fools] 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
From your reference: "But, according to new research, they can already assess someone's intentions towards them, deciding who is a likely friend or enemy."
Is deciding who is a likely friend or enemy the same as morality?
2007-12-11 00:01:41 · answer #5 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, that is kind of cool. But I don't think it really proved anything. I don't think the babies would've been aware of what they were and weren't choosing... they probably just picked the closest one or the brightest colored one or something. They're a bit too young to fully understand or comprehend things like morals, ya know?
2007-12-09 07:12:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think it just proves that even babies are smart enough to know right from wrong without having to have a book to get it out of.
2007-12-09 07:11:08 · answer #7 · answered by Cheryl E 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Makes sense!!! Most people desire to be treated nice and in return would prefer to treat others the same way!!
If you treat others the way you want to be treated then you can reach them on so many different levels.
2007-12-09 07:11:06 · answer #8 · answered by Wyco 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Religion does not necessarily equate with morality. So that's no big scientific discovery.
2007-12-09 08:26:16 · answer #9 · answered by Bookworm 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's common sense that people should want to treat others as they would want to be treated. No need for supernatural fairy tale characters to provide guidance.
2007-12-09 07:12:05 · answer #10 · answered by ibushido 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I am glad that you found that study and that you posted that. Unfortunately, the people who it might affect are the ones who will discount it. As you can see...
A star fo you!
2007-12-09 13:04:07 · answer #11 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋