A Case for Inherent Morality

[JohnJubinsky]

I have seen a lot of uncaring parents but their young children are still happy innocent things for a significant period after they are born. I am not saying that all children are born good. I'm saying most are because they are genetically predisposed to it. (Of course not all would be genetically predisposed to it.)

A number of responses here, though I'm not arguing with you. 

First,  I don't know if their "happy innocent" condition can necessarily be called a morality. Happy is more like a mood. Innocent might suggest that they haven't been challenged or tested yet. 

I think some children are born more cheerful than others (while others are sort of grouchy from birth). So as long as their most basic needs are met, they will come across as happy and innocent. And that is probably a genetic disposition, in large part. 

The fact that the parents are uncaring might not affect a pre-moral happy infant so much (again, so long as the basic needs are met) but when we're talking about morality that would be likely to have an effect later on. They would learn, for example, that one need not show care for those around one. 

Of course there are a million variables. Siblings or grandparents or baby sitters, even what they see on kiddy TV. Even Teletubbies teaches stuff like sharing. 

So I guess I'm curious about where we draw the line between a sort of pre-moral happy disposition, and morality per se, which involves choices in how we treat people.

I don't agree that one can be happy and innocent without being moral.