A Case for Inherent Morality

[brewer]

Never said it couldn't. The difference is that you can question the adult and debate alternative motives. Not so much with infants.

There could also be all kinds of non emotional reasons for the babies choices, but I chose to give John emotional reasons as that seems to be part of his position.

The point I was making was that you seemed to be suggesting that the babies' "moral behavior" wasn't truly moral if it could be explained that way, so you were implying that behavior explained that way wasn't truly moral.  If adult behavior can be similarly explained, then adult behavior is similarly not an example of moral behavior.  You didn't say it explicitly, but unless you're agreeing that there is no moral behavior in adults and children both, it was implied.  I think.  I'm not sure I fully understand what value you're assigning to those feelings.  Self-reporting of behavior doesn't necessarily resolve the ambiguity as those self-reports have plenty of confounding factors, including a history of being told that their feeling concerning the subject are moral feelings, when in fact they may be no different than the self-interested babies' feelings.  Self-reports confirm expectations, but they don't explain the expectations themselves.  Are you, then, suggesting that there is no such thing as moral behavior, in adults or in babies?  Or are you arguing for John's position that morals are simply evolved behaviors?

I'm saying that coming to the conclusion that the babies behavior represents a moral behavior is not necessarily correct, therefore stating that babies have morals is not necessarily correct.

My position on "moral(s)" is that it exists on a sliding scale. Where it lands on the scale depends on the behavior/situation, the actor/participant and the observer/recipient. It's a set and setting thing (without the drugs). Johns "moral" behaviors I would call evolved beneficial group/social/societal behaviors. 

And you're right, babies and adults can act out of self interest that may appear to the observer as "moral". And I agree that self reporting may not reflect the actual motive but the report can be questioned with an adult, not a baby.

I do take issue with the term moral when applied to behaviors, it requires a judgement. As soon as a judgement is made we're back to the sliding scale.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are we taking issue to sliding scales? The difference we call intelligence between plants animals and human animals is no more or less a sliding scale to my mind. Additionally, if we're taking behaviors, situations, actors, participants, observers and recipients into account when we moralize..that seems rather methodical and exhaustive. Is that what a sliding scale looks like, and, if so, what exactly is the issue with sliding scales supposed to be? If we grant that it is one, whatever that's taken to mean...then?

Similarly, is acting out of self interest categorically not moral? Is the issue with acting out of self interest, or some other specific thing being alluded to by it's mention? Leading me to my final q - in discussing issues with self interest or sliding scales...haven't we just made a judgement...about sufficient and insufficient basis for Proper Moralizing™? I think that you'll find that when ethnographers and ethicists refer to moral behaviors, they're significantly un-judgey in the use of the term. Some terrible thing that another person does because they believe it to be the highest virtue would still be, to a meticulous observer, a moral behavior. Saying that people engage in moral behaviors and judgements is a brute fact of mere observation. We know that we're doing it, whatever it turns out to be, whatever it's metaethical status. Every position on morality is a position on that fact of human behavior.

I tend to get the impression that people have particular sets of moral propositions in mind when they have objections like these. Ones that stick the landing with respect to some particular moral claim which they don't believe is well made. The utility of the objection beyond that, imho, limited to nil. For example, if moral behavior were inherent and a sliding scale...then that's what morality is/would be. It would just be a fact of x. That humans beings are born with this sliding scale thing we all do, and can't help but do.

[JohnJubinsky]

[brewer]

[John 6IX Breezy]

[JohnJubinsky]

I think that the above posts that brewer made about studies confirming that infants 
prefer to be around others similar to themselves can also be explained by natural selection. That is, it was simply safer to be around others similar to oneself. As such, preferring to be around others similar to oneself became an inborn characteristic of the species.

Bold: While that may be, it's not morals.

I don't think you read or comprehended the second study. It addressed infant study flaws and manipulation.

My original post proposes that most morals are the result of natural selection.

[The Grand Nudger]

[brewer]

[JohnJubinsky]

[Belacqua]

If you look at the video you can see that when the six month old hugged the good puppet the hug became a very loving one for a period of time. This confirms that the baby was not simply motivated by the selfish desire for the puppet to help it.

Sorry, I don't see yet how a long loving embrace is proof that we're talking about morality, rather than survival value.  

I can see obvious evolutionary advantages for choosing to be with helpful people.