Story here in the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Wes Widner, Muddling Towards Maturity)
Excerpt:
At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk.
But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.
An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences.
Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.
In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones.
In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.
Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life.
‘With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life.
Muddling writes:
Is anyone reminded of Romans 2:15 “… the work of the law is written on their hearts…“? Cf. J. Budziszewski’s Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, and his other book, What We Can’t Not Know.
I guess now is as good a time as any to link to the scheming unborn baby post.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
As my campus pastor’s wife once said: No one who has ever raised a two-year-old can tell me that humans are not sinful creatures.
LikeLike
I’ve heard toddlers described as demons, but sinful? She was kidding, right?
LikeLike
She was referring to the fact that even a two-year-old will consciously choose do something they know to be wrong or unacceptable.
Her point (and one that I believe) was that people are born with a sinful, rebellious nature, which is why we each need God to save us.
LikeLike
Wintery,
I sent this to my atheist buddies. The response was,
“The article fails to distinguish moral from helpful. A near helpless creature shows a preference for helpful company. Astounding.
Monkeys do this, too. They “punish” cage mates who are set up by human experimentors as competitors with ill intent and “reward” (or leave alone) those that are set up as by-standers or helpers.”
LikeLike
babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones
Sounds just like evolution in action, especially since it talks about traits that help a species survive in a predatory world vs. the typical morals that are described in the bible. We are social creatures that evolved to help each other and cooperate. Since we’re considerably weaker and slower than other animals our size/weight, cooperation was imperative for our survival – those that don’t want to coooperate tend to get punished. More proof of evolution and less of god!
LikeLike
Traits that help a species survive is not necessarily about evolution.
“those that don’t want to cooperate tend to get punished”
And yet after the assumed billions of years of weeding out the uncooperatives, we still have uncooperative characters and rebels amongst us?
LikeLike
Actually, I’m the third in a family of ten. I have observed and interacted closely 24/7 with all of my younger siblings when they were six months old. There’s no doubt that they are born with an innate understanding of authority and obedience. There’s no purely physical explanation for why a small infant would want – regardless of reward – to please those he/she loves. Or understand and test the authority of his/her parents so early in development of personality.
LikeLike