Robber Baron? Or capitalism in action?

[rogue06]

What a nerd.

One of the many contradictory aspects of my personality.

[Mountain Man]

Why did you not watch it? You could have avoided all these unnecessary posts.

Are you suggesting that your description of the video which I responded to and agreed with is inaccurate?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Are you suggesting that your description of the video which I responded to and agreed with is inaccurate?

You alleged that I had written "You said that children can be trained with punishment". I wrote no such thing.

I recommend you watch the video and then make a reply, or desist. This is simply going around in circles.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Because as MM states, argument by weblink is not allowed on this site. If you wish to make an argument, you need to state it yourself. You can use excerpts of external information to bolster your argument but not rely on the external data to make your argument for you.

So hop to it.

Debates (points for your position) made via weblink are not allowed. Weblinks may be used when a substantive summary of the point being made is posted on the board with a link given for further information regarding your position. Remember responsive arguments are to be as personal as possible, not "cut and paste" dueling articles. This can be avoided by giving one's personal analysis along with an article, or just quoting the specifically relevant portions and showing relevance.
https://theologyweb.com/campus/help#...corumetiquette

I referred to the behaviour of very young children in the video. He then alleged I had written something that I had not.

It is self-evident Mountain Man is not interested in a serious exchange pertaining to the topic of young children's perceptions of "right and wrong" behaviour because that research suggests that the claim he initially made that "My contention from the start has been that greed and exploitation of others is a human quality" is not actually borne out in every situation and may in fact not be such a "human quality" as he contends.

[Mountain Man]

I referred to the behaviour of very young children in the video. He then alleged I had written something that I had not.

It is self-evident Mountain Man is not interested in a serious exchange pertaining to the topic of young children's perceptions of "right and wrong" behaviour because that research suggests that the claim he initially made that "My contention from the start has been that greed and exploitation of others is a human quality" is not actually borne out in every situation and may in fact not be such a "human quality" as he contends.

Now I'm curious, does your video feature feral children who have received no nurturing or influence from human adults, sort of like Mowgli in the Rudyard Kipling story? Are you claiming that children left completely on their own and with no external influence whatsoever will naturally develop altruistic tendencies and create an economic system that will never succumb to the vices of greed and exploitation? Perhaps the video is more fascinating than you let on. I wonder where the researchers found these feral children?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Now I'm curious, does your video feature feral children who have received no nurturing or influence from human adults, sort of like Mowgli in the Rudyard Kipling story? Are you claiming that children left completely on their own and with no external influence whatsoever will naturally develop altruistic tendencies and create an economic system that will never succumb to the vices of greed and exploitation? Perhaps the video is more fascinating than you let on. I wonder where the researchers found these feral children?

Stop asking questions that can be answered you simply giving up around 20 minutes of your time,

[Mountain Man]

Stop asking questions that can be answered you simply giving up around 20 minutes of your time,

Stop avoiding the issue and present your own argument instead of lazily linking to a video which I frankly have no interest in wasting 20-minutes of my time to watch. I personally don't care for videos other than for mindless entertainment and would prefer something written. Surely this "study" was documented somewhere and doesn't exist only as a video.

[Sparko]

I referred to the behaviour of very young children in the video. He then alleged I had written something that I had not.

It is self-evident Mountain Man is not interested in a serious exchange pertaining to the topic of young children's perceptions of "right and wrong" behaviour because that research suggests that the claim he initially made that "My contention from the start has been that greed and exploitation of others is a human quality" is not actually borne out in every situation and may in fact not be such a "human quality" as he contends.

The history of the human race proves you wrong. The less civilization (i.e. rules) the more violent people have been all throughout history. Heck just look at how people act after a natural disaster when they know the police can't stop them from stealing and looting form each other.

[Mountain Man]

Heck just look at how people act after a natural disaster...

Or after their candidate loses an election.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The history of the human race proves you wrong. The less civilization (i.e. rules) the more violent people have been all throughout history.

[sarcasm intended] And you of course have at your fingertips evidence of people "throughout history"?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Stop avoiding the issue and present your own argument instead of lazily linking to a video which I frankly have no interest in wasting 20-minutes of my time to watch. I personally don't care for videos other than for mindless entertainment and would prefer something written. Surely this "study" was documented somewhere and doesn't exist only as a video.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ife-of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things. Bloom answered questions recently from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.

You can read the rest of the interview by using the link.

You might also like to read these .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5921922/

Not Noble Savages after all: Limits to early altruism

Abstract


Many scholars draw on evidence from evolutionary biology, behavioral economics, and infant research to argue that humans are “noble savages”, endowed with indiscriminate kindness. We believe this is mistaken. While there is evidence for an early-emerging moral sense – even infants recognize and favor instances of fairness and kindness amongst third parties – altruistic behaviors are selective from the start. Babies and young children favor those who have been kind to them in the past, and favor familiar individuals over strangers. They hold strong biases for ingroup over outgroup and for self over other, and indeed are more unequivocally selfish than older children and adults. Much of what is most impressive about adult morality arises not through inborn capacities, but a fraught developmental process that involves exposure to culture and the exercise of rationality.

Keywords: morality, development, altruism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6159747/
A Developmental Perspective on the Origins of Morality in Infancy and Early Childhood

Abstract


Key constituents of morality emerge during the first 4 years of life. Recent research with infants and toddlers holds a promise to explain the origins of human morality. This article takes a constructivist approach to the acquisition of morality, and makes three main proposals. First, research on moral development needs an explicit definition of morality. Definitions are crucial for scholarly communication and for settling empirical questions. Second, researchers would benefit from eschewing the dichotomy between innate and learned explanations of morality. Based on work on developmental biology, we propose that all developmental transitions involve both genetic and environmental factors. Third, attention is needed to developmental changes, alongside continuities, in the development of morality from infancy through childhood. Although infants and toddlers show behaviors that resemble the morally relevant behaviors of older children and adults, they do not judge acts as morally right or wrong until later in childhood. We illustrate these points by discussing the development of two phenomena central to morality: Orientations toward helping others and developing concepts of social equality. We assert that a constructivist approach will help to bridge research on infants and toddlers with research on moral developmental later in childhood and into adulthood.

Keywords: morality, infancy, constructivism, social development, helping behavior, intergroup attitudes

However, as with all such research the evidence may not be considered conclusive, N.B. the following paper predates the two above.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0815093230.htm

Babies may not have a 'moral compass' after all

Date:August 15, 2012Source:University of OtagoSummary:New research is casting doubt on a landmark US study that suggested infants as young as six months old possess an innate moral compass that allows them to evaluate individuals as "good" or "bad."FULL STORY

---

New research from New Zealand's University of Otago is casting doubt on a landmark US study that suggested infants as young as six months old possess an innate moral compass that allows them to evaluate individuals as 'good' or 'bad'.

The 2007 study by Yale University researchers provided the first evidence that 6- and 10-month-old infants could assess individuals based on their behaviour towards others, showing a preference for those who helped rather than hindered another individual.

[rogue06]

Stop asking questions that can be answered you simply giving up around 20 minutes of your time,

Or answered by you in a single sentence.

Again, you are skirting very close to arguing via weblink when you refuse to answer with anything more than "watch the video."

[rogue06]

The history of the human race proves you wrong. The less civilization (i.e. rules) the more violent people have been all throughout history. Heck just look at how people act after a natural disaster when they know the police can't stop them from stealing and looting form each other.

There have been several studies that have suggested that the further we go back through time the more likely that someone died via violence. The odds of someone dying as a result of violence has been steadily decreasing through time.

[Mountain Man]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ife-of-babies/
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things. Bloom answered questions recently from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.

You can read the rest of the interview by using the link.

You might also like to read these .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5921922/

Not Noble Savages after all: Limits to early altruism

Abstract


Many scholars draw on evidence from evolutionary biology, behavioral economics, and infant research to argue that humans are “noble savages”, endowed with indiscriminate kindness. We believe this is mistaken. While there is evidence for an early-emerging moral sense – even infants recognize and favor instances of fairness and kindness amongst third parties – altruistic behaviors are selective from the start. Babies and young children favor those who have been kind to them in the past, and favor familiar individuals over strangers. They hold strong biases for ingroup over outgroup and for self over other, and indeed are more unequivocally selfish than older children and adults. Much of what is most impressive about adult morality arises not through inborn capacities, but a fraught developmental process that involves exposure to culture and the exercise of rationality.

Keywords: morality, development, altruism

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6159747/
A Developmental Perspective on the Origins of Morality in Infancy and Early Childhood

Abstract


Key constituents of morality emerge during the first 4 years of life. Recent research with infants and toddlers holds a promise to explain the origins of human morality. This article takes a constructivist approach to the acquisition of morality, and makes three main proposals. First, research on moral development needs an explicit definition of morality. Definitions are crucial for scholarly communication and for settling empirical questions. Second, researchers would benefit from eschewing the dichotomy between innate and learned explanations of morality. Based on work on developmental biology, we propose that all developmental transitions involve both genetic and environmental factors. Third, attention is needed to developmental changes, alongside continuities, in the development of morality from infancy through childhood. Although infants and toddlers show behaviors that resemble the morally relevant behaviors of older children and adults, they do not judge acts as morally right or wrong until later in childhood. We illustrate these points by discussing the development of two phenomena central to morality: Orientations toward helping others and developing concepts of social equality. We assert that a constructivist approach will help to bridge research on infants and toddlers with research on moral developmental later in childhood and into adulthood.

Keywords: morality, infancy, constructivism, social development, helping behavior, intergroup attitudes

However, as with all such research the evidence may not be considered conclusive, N.B. the following paper predates the two above.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0815093230.htm

Babies may not have a 'moral compass' after all

Date:August 15, 2012Source:University of OtagoSummary:New research is casting doubt on a landmark US study that suggested infants as young as six months old possess an innate moral compass that allows them to evaluate individuals as "good" or "bad."FULL STORY

---

New research from New Zealand's University of Otago is casting doubt on a landmark US study that suggested infants as young as six months old possess an innate moral compass that allows them to evaluate individuals as 'good' or 'bad'.

The 2007 study by Yale University researchers provided the first evidence that 6- and 10-month-old infants could assess individuals based on their behaviour towards others, showing a preference for those who helped rather than hindered another individual.

Your sources seem to be focusing on the fact that all humans have an innate ability to recognize right from wrong (which, incidentally, is something you would expect to see in a theistic universe but not an atheistic one). What I'm not seeing is any indication that this innate ability will naturally incline humans to only do what is right and avoid what is wrong, which is what you're proposing. On the contrary, the natural inclination seems to be that if it is to one's advantage to do what is wrong, and they can get away with it, then they will do what is wrong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your sources seem to be focusing on the fact that all humans have an innate ability to recognize right from wrong (which, incidentally, is something you would expect to see in a theistic universe but not an atheistic one). What I'm not seeing is any indication that this innate ability will naturally incline humans to only do what is right and avoid what is wrong, which is what you're proposing. On the contrary, the natural inclination seems to be that if it is to one's advantage to do what is wrong, and they can get away with it, then they will do what is wrong.

I tried.