Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At MMN: Children use reason, not gut, for moral problems

arroba Email

Audun Dahlis thinks that the case against moral reasoning has begun to unravel:

A psychology prof (pictured) at University of California, Santa Cruz offers us a surprising message about children: They do not rely merely on feelings, but rather reason, when making moral choices:

For decades, research on children – unlike research on adults – has overwhelmingly concluded that participants do reason about moral issues. (Strangely, psychological research often portrays children more favourably than it does adults.) In one classic study from the 1980s, researchers interviewed six- to 10-year-old children in the United States. They asked about several fictional moral violations: for instance, a child who pushed another child off the top of a slide. When asked why pushing was wrong, children typically explained that it could hurt the victim. Accordingly, most children said that pushing would still be wrong even if adults had given permission. That is, children embraced the principle that pushing was wrong because it caused harm and, consistent with this principle, judged that pushing was wrong, whether adults gave permission or not. – Audun Dahlis, “Young Children Use Reason, Not Gut Feelings, to Decide Moral Issues” at Psyche (September 16, 2020)

News, “Children use reason, not gut, for moral problems” at Mind Matters News

Naturalists keep trying to harpoon the reality of the human soul but never quite succeed.


6 Aaron1978 And I thought I was hard on the non-sensical materialists. :) Truthfreedom
Hey Aaron, that is just the standard modus operandi of Darwinists. Deny the existence of everything that gives any hint of God. Consciousness? it is an illusion and doesn't exist. Free will? ditto Morality? ditto Beauty? ditto Purpose for life? ditto Any real meaning to life? ditto A soul? double ditto etc.. etc.. Crying shame! How anyone can stand such an impoverished worldview I have no idea. Funning thing is that the only thing that is truly illusory in the Darwinian worldview is the claim from Darwinists that they have any real evidence that Darwinian evolution is actually true. bornagain77
@1 sure ok What evidence do you need? btw are you a proponent of ool, string theory, multiverse, dark matter, many worlds hypothesis etc? If so you then know where you can put your comment in regards to the soul. I’ll give you a hint, trash is in the name. AaronS1978
Naturalists keep trying to harpoon the reality of the human soul but never quite succeed.
Naturalism is at odds with reality. And that's why they fail miserably. Truthfreedom
Seversky: You demand evidence for a soul, yet ignore the lack of evidence of macro-evolution. You've admitted that macro-evolution has never been witnessed. Without witnessing something and without replication of results, the scientific method does not allow for any hypothesis to be called a theory. Pointing to adaptation as evidence of speciation is no different that pointing to the universe as evidence of a multiverse. One does not guarantee the other. BobRyan
Knowing what's right and wrong is gut. Empathy is gut. Quibbling about permission is reason. Reason gets us into trouble every time if it departs from our built-in morality. polistra
1 Seversky
let alone evidence that it actually exists.
Being: Material cause: What is X made of? Formal cause: What makes it an X? Becoming: Efficient cause: How is X made? Final cause: What is X made for?
"Soul": what you materialists call ADN. But for some reason, with your ADN paradigm, you can not explain why: - two identical twins (same ADN) have different personalities - humans have free will and are the only creatures on earth that understand abstracta (yes, yes, your attempt at an explanation are "the brain and its emergent properties", where emergent equates to "magic"). And the "soul" is what frees the hylemorphist from your naturalist epistemological nightmare, remember? You are forever trapped inside your brain, which demolishes epistemological realism, and no Korzybski's map-territory attempt at escaping it will help you. Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare Aristotle (and the soul) are back. And what explains why humans (and other creatures) exist as whole substances, instead of formless heaps of atoms. Aristotle was far more intelligent than the modern materialists are. Truthfreedom
I'm still waiting to see an coherent definition of what a soul is supposed to be, let alone evidence that it actually exists. Seversky

Leave a Reply