Introduction
The book Just Babies: The Origin of Good and Evil describes morality and poses arguments to justify whether moral sense is innate or learned through environmental interactions. The book is written by Paul Bloom, a development psychologist at Yale. The author argues that people should not seek the origin of moral behavior exclusively by looking at either nurture. Bloom presents that certain aspects of moral senses are innate. Even though the author offers broad coverage of the morality topic and the effective attempts to ensure that all the moral arguments are supported by substantial experimental evidence, there is a misalignment between what Bloom believes and what evidence shows.
There are multiple interesting and fascinating aspects to this book. For example, Bloom supports most of his arguments with experimental evidence and evolutional theories. Bloom cites and expounds on Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson’s views, which suggests that some components of morality are natural to humans (Bloom, 2013). The author stresses that babies have an innate moral sense. Specifically, the author mentions a study finding that infants are not born as innate racists, with any racial prejudice and ‘them versus us’ mentality developing later in life (Bloom, 2013).
Some of the reservations towards the book are the way Bloom mixes some of his concepts. From the book’s title, the reader expects to see the arguments presented revolve around the topics such as babies, good, and evil. However, Bloom has spent more effort describing the general concepts of morality, which does not relate strictly to babies. The themes addressed in the review include empathy and compassion, equality and fairness, and disgust and repulsion, as illustrated in this book. Besides, the analysis will focus on the book’s general composition and establish the strengths and weaknesses by looking to what extent the author has focused on the key topics and supported his arguments.
Summary
In Paul Bloom’s book Just Babies, the theme of molarity is being supported by evidence. Concise arguments are presented to elaborate on whether morality is innate or not. In the first chapter of the book, the author argues that certain moral foundations cannot be acquired through learning. On the contrary, such morality foundations are products of biological evolution. The book presents different arguments demonstrating how people look at morality and moral reasoning across society. Moreover, exact comparisons are made to display the differences between conservatives and liberals. Paul also illustrates the role of the environment in encouraging either kindness or cruelty. The concepts presented in the book show the neuroscientists’ ability to look at the different parts of the brain used in moral reasoning.
The book has a precise beginning, describing various contemporary moral variations such as marriages, religion, masturbation, and homosexuality. The author expounds on some of the natural reactions people show towards lying. In addition, the author uses precise, descriptive techniques to elaborate on compassion and empathy. Bloom outlines the experiments he, together with other people, have done with babies. The author asserts that even before babies develop the capacity to verbalize, people can easily predict what the children expect by evaluating their concentration while observing something (Bloom, 2013).
Babies take a long time looking at situations or objects they do not expect. Arguably, children within that age limit of one year have had an opportunity to learn the good and the bad for the past 12 months. However, Bloom has established that even infants who are three months old spend much time on and prefer looking at the ‘helper’ compared to a ‘hinderer.’ Bloom argues that such ability, as shown by the three-month infants, is evidence that newborns have a moral sense since infants are attracted to a friendly personality and repelled from a mean character. Such an argument may be correct, although the author has not fully proved the innateness.
It could have been helpful to study the specific moral senses that exist after they are born by observing environmental rather than physical functions such as hearing or blinking. In other words, the author has not clearly illustrated why he believes that the moral reactions shown by three months old baby should be treated as innate but not a learned moral sense.
Critical Analysis of the Book
The critical analysis of the book is focused on exploring the author’s approach and pointing out both the limitations and advantages of the evidence given. In proving the innateness of moral sense shown by the infants, the author needs to present much harder evidence proving that the behavior shown has either existed from day one after birth or is genetic. The approach the author used in establishing innateness is based on universalism. Mostly, assertions are made that if a behavior occurs across cultures, it results from the culture. The example of justification provided by the author is that across many cultures, infants prefer being handled fairly and that they get upset when treated unequally.
In support of Bloom’s argument, it has been established that identical behavior is observed in different animal species, such as dogs. Specifically, it is most likely that a dog that gets a comparatively smaller share becomes vexed when feeding dogs. However, regardless of anthropomorphism’s dangers, it is evidenced that the author’s justification is based on nativism.
Bloom examines universality related to strong emotion-attached morals such as the desire to punish others, the suffering associated with the pain of people around, and the drive for informing those who do wrongs. These strong emotions are seen both in children and in adults. Therefore, the author’s thesis is well supported, and an argument can be made that these emotion-attached morals are innate and not learned. Conversely, the validation of such debates requires more substantial genetic proof absent in Bloom’s work. However, to substantiate the arguments in the absence of strong genetic indication, Bloom does an excellent job by providing elaborate discussion regarding the possible evolutionary benefits of emotion-attached morals.
Bloom describes some of the most remarkable classic experiments that make his arguments valid. Bloom (2013) suggested that, in a psychological study conducted by Kenneth and Mamie Clark, black children were presented with black and white dolls. Notably, many children chose the white dolls in the south’s isolated areas and used negative characterization to make descriptions of the black dolls. Bloom has referred to this study in the Brown versus Board of Education decision to end school segregation as a means of facilitating a crucial aspect of developmental psychological establishment in US history (Bloom, 2013).
However, the way this finding fits into Bloom’s theory of morality is not exact. The experiment conducted by Kenneth and Mamie Clark only showed that children might make judgments based on stereotypical perceptions when people are not exposed to others from different backgrounds. It is not clear how Bloom is trying to link his theory of morality to the study conducted by Kenneth and Mamie Clark.
Bloom recounts the study carried out in 1954 by the social psychologist Muzafer Sheriff about the robbers’ cave. In that study, the Sheriff invited middle-class boys to Oklahoma in a summer camp. He then separated those boys into two definite groups, the eagles and the rattlers. Sheriff asserts that even the slightest difference can lead to conflicts both within and outside the groups. After a short time, the two groups started expressing their differences in conversational and dressing styles. Sheriff puts forward that the Rattlers would use swear words while the eagles prided themselves in speaking cleanly (Bloom, 2013).
The groups start using abusive epithets to describe each other. The Rattlers eventually destroyed the Eagle’s cabin, following the initial incidence where the Eagles had stolen the Rattlers’ flag and burnt it. Finally, Sheriff established that only broken water, a shared problem, could bring the boys together. Notably, from the study about the Robbers Cave, people often identify with those they are grouped. Moreover, people prefer judging members of their group as superior. In addition, the study of the Robbers Cave illustrates the likelihood of making value judgments about others concerning their group membership, a character trait that humans share with the primates.
According to Bloom, social cues are vital aspects of the psychological development of children. He notes that initially, people will make distinctions by nature, but it is the environment that tells them how to achieve this specifically (Bloom, 2013). For instance, it is observed that when children are choosing friends, they show no bias. Furthermore, babies have the ability to differentiate people by their skin complexion. In certain racially mixed schools, the older children display no bias in choosing friends. By implications, teenagers only show partiality in circumstances where race becomes relevant in a social context. For instance, when black children are isolated from sitting at one table in a cafeteria while the white children sit at another, they can develop group superiority perceptions and show partiality in how they regard each other.
Disgust plays a critical role in morality. In the experiment carried out by psychologist Paul Rozin, it is established that children below two years old eat almost everything. Paul Rozin gave the children food that was deliberately prepared to look like the faces of dogs. Most of the children ate the food. In his extensive investigations, Bloom (2013) found out that 1/3 of the two-year-old children showed a willingness to eat grasshoppers. From the reading of Bloom’s work, it is observed that he provides an argument that disgust is absent in the early child development stages.
On the contrary, Bloom asserts that adaptive features such as allowing children to openly learn about what is edible from other people within their social groups can shape their food choices. Nonetheless, as the children grow older, they become more socialized, and their food choices become shaped by their culture. Resultantly, the children’s disgust towards inedible objectives becomes strong, especially concerning issues that can harm them, such as eating rotten or contaminated food. Bloom extensively explores the changes in aversion to food flavors and feelings of disgust pertaining to people’s moral tastes. In his argument, he presents that the same circuitry neural that expedites contempt towards the former was initially co-opted during evolution to facilitate the latter’s repulsion.
Upon exploring the book further, it becomes clear that Bloom does not show strictness in adhering to the title of the book. On the contrary, he roams about various ages to clearly illustrate his concepts. Bloom (2013) writes that there is a specific moral foundation that is impossible to attain through learning. He analyzes some of the ethical grounds observed in adults and in primate animals and then compares the observations to reactions depicted by children. Bloom argues that altruism results from evolution and that it is inborn by nature. According to Bloom (2013), natural selection has its boundaries and is directly associated with the current state of affairs.
Thus, maladaptive behaviors in the preset context align fully with the theory of evolution. Bloom uses instructive historical thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Jefferson, and Adam Smith to ensure that all the evolutionary concepts used in justifying his arguments are detailed. Bloom agrees with the arguments put forth by the researchers acknowledging their view that a basic sense concerning justice and fairness are already present in young babies. Moreover, Bloom states that the various moral meanings that differ from one person to another are altered or inhibited by specific environmental conditions.
Bloom writes his arguments in both an open and justifiable way. Although he seems to be engaging readers by making assertions that require them to answer particular questions, his work shows coherency. For instance, Bloom wants the readers to answer questions related to the eye movements of the baby and what they expect. Bloom’s open writing style indicates that he would be ready to enjoy a positive contribution from any skeptical individuals. Related to the unbelief that innate morality exists, Bloom does not waiver in his stance.
Bloom (2013) writes that people development environments that can help transform infants, which are only partially moral, into very moral adults. In this context, Bloom talks about the entirety of the human race. He does not stick to the topic of children and their morality only. Instead, he looks at adults’ morality and links it to its possible creation from childhood to adulthood. The developmental condition in children and infants is relevant to adults because the foundations that emerge in the early years offer the basis for future changes prompted by environmental influences (Bloom, 2013). Hence, increased morality is a function of human ingenuity and human interaction.
However, humans forget about the early days of their childhood, and there is no possibility that one can report first-hand about the experience in those early years. According to Bloom, the way babies’ internal minds work is not hidden. Bloom (2013) writes that psychologists began exploring the movement of infants’ eyes, which is one of the few behaviors that can result in measurable outcomes.
By looking at what they are interested in and bored with, or what they want to see and expect, scientists argue that babies know rudimentary math and physics. For instance, after a baby is shown a series of paired objects, the child is likely to keep staring longer when publicized to more groups. This suggests that babies understand there is a difference between two and three. There are many instances in the book that proves Bloom’s adeptness to encourage the readers to examine human moral functioning.
This book shows both strengths and weaknesses, some of which are highlighted as follows. The most evident power that the author presents is various psychological realms utilized to justify whether people are born with a moral compass. He explores the already existing psychological studies and evolutional theories and explains why people are taught about the human mind’s evolution.
Moreover, Bloom uses the previous evolution theories to explain how and why individuals relate to one another, the extent to which humans can control their actions without an overthought into right or wrong. Bloom believes that human biology has enabled people to be born with an innate sense of morality, and he uses substantial evidence to demonstrate his argument by providing as much evidence as possible. The scholar cites research that has witnessed toddlers having a sense of compassion and fairness, with new insights and understandings evolving as children grow.
Bloom explores several case studies and aggregates various scenarios regarding the human decision-making process. He explains how humans expand and contract over time. There are specific themes in the book that Bloom covered perfectly well. For instance, the themes of empathy and compassion and emotion and disgust have been elaborated effectively. Furthermore, the impression of the book arises from how perfect Bloom addresses the belief that people would fail to have morals when there is no religion. The author rejects the trendy idea that unconscious biases and gut feelings mainly drive the moral decisions of human beings. Similar to the way that reason and evidence have conducted important scientific discoveries, both evidence and reason as necessary for making discoveries on morality, such as the ethical wrongness of slavery.
Counter Arguments
While the book has many advantages in the way that the author presents information, there are still some limitations. For example, the title of the book is Just Babies, but the broad concepts discussed are not just about babies. At the beginning of the book, the ideas are effectively articulated to revolve around and elaborate on development psychology. Suddenly, the author shifts his arguments to issues that could be termed as undergraduate-level ethics and morality topics, which are broader and have little connection to baby studies. The book’s title makes a reader expect that the author will talk about babies, goodness, and evil. However, the author takes almost half of the content talking about integrity and one-third talking about babies.
The theme of evilness is barely addressed, and the book shows laxity in how the author’s points become oversimplified and kept passing from scientific views to personalized opinions. At one point, Bloom (2013) warns about the possibility of harmful genes spreading and capturing the population, thus creating a psychopath-filled world. This point seems unrealistic, and there was no study cited in support. The use of pop culture references is indeed helpful for readers to understand the book because they illustrate examples from research by using universal knowledge.
Furthermore, the author failed to address the origin of evil or good. The arguments presented are not specific to the topic of good and evil in regards to infants. At some point, Bloom gives generalized ideas, in the form of a jumble related to different theories describing general aspects of morality. Bloom discusses morality in babies but seldomly jumps to drawing various conclusions based on the experiments he conducts.
Bloom (2013) uses anecdotal evidence to suggest is no agreement from moral philosophers as to what constitutes morality, while non-philosophers prefer avoiding the term altogether. For example, the author claims that children have morals from birth which can be refuted. Some children acquire morals as they grow because they watch and imitate those who are around them. In the process, they receive characters that influence the morals from the environment in which they are raised.
Author’s Use of Evidence
The author uses evidence in several ways to prove that babies have an innate moral sense. First, Bloom (2013) argues that babies can distinguish between acts that are kind such as one object helping another and unjust actions such as one object blocking the other. Second, in one experiment, Bloom (2013) presents a scenario where children watched two puppets, where a ball is passed to bot a ‘nice’ puppet and a ‘bad’ puppet. The friendly puppet returns the ball while the naughty one steals the ball away. When it was time to give a reward or a punishment to the puppets, children showed partiality and treats away from the naughty puppet.
Under such a circumstance, it is observed that the children who are one year and below shows the ability to make a moral judgment. They can distinguish between the bad and the good. Third, Bloom (2013) provides an example of Blake’s and McAuliffe’s experiment that involved the pairing of four- and eight-year-olds who have never met and set in front of a candy-dispensing apparatus. The children were given control of a lever that would dispense the candy and were asked to control it. When the kids got equal amounts, they never used the available option of dumping all candy from the tray. However, when either of them got more, the other would dump the tray so no one would get any, thus facilitating fairness so that no one, especially a stranger, would get more candy than them.
Are the Book Arguments Convincing?
When it comes to whether Bloom aims to convince his audience rigorously, there is not much convincing taking place. Instead, the book makes some interesting points about morality, but the arguments are not robust enough. The scientific proofs used by Bloom (2013) to illustrate whether the babies have innate moral sense are not as extensive and convincing as would be expected. The language used in expressing the arguments is simple and accessible, making the book Just Babies an excellent introduction for the reader. However, it is difficult to obtain a proven hypothesis from the argument presented by the author. Additionally, the author fails to stick to the book’s title and discuss issues related to morality and babies as would be expected. On the contrary, he extends his arguments to cover general concepts of morality, which makes the book slightly unconvincing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, what starts as a fascinating overview of the latest developmental psychology studies swiftly transforms into a series of undergraduate-level musings on ethics and morality. The lectures are too extensive and do not focus specifically on the children development studies that Bloom initially cites. Moreover, it is of no help that the research on whether infants have the ability to distinguish between hindering and helping or reward or punishment tendencies seems less impactful than initially communicated. A significant section of the first part of the book is focused on infants possessing instinctive moral senses.
However, as Bloom (2013) begins to cite research pertaining to this topic, it becomes clear that such attributes are, in fact missing and only develop after a certain age. Nevertheless, the book is helpful to read, both for the general audiences and individuals who are specifically interested in studying human development. Despite the existing contradictions, Bloom’s findings show the process of conditioning occurs earlier than most expect, which is notable although not detrimental for overturning moral philosophy.
Reference
Bloom, P. (2013). Just babies: The origins of good and evil. Broadway Books.