Little Blobby Bigots: Babies, Morality, and the Tribal Instinct

          Over the last semester, my psychology professor would treat us each week to clips of 60 Minutes episodes relevant to that day's topic.  One of those that has managed to stick with me was one on the "origins of morality," or, rather, whether or not we're born with "moral compasses."

If you've got a few minutes, it's really worth seeing:

In this Yale study, babies as young as three months old were shown a puppet show, with two different puppets exhibiting either social ("nice") or antisocial ("bad") behavior.  They were then allowed to choose one of the puppets to play with.  Almost every time, the babies chose the pro-social ("nice") puppet, showing that even infants are able to differentiate between "good" and "bad" behavior, as well as recognize that good behavior is preferable.  Pretty complex for a three-month old!

Then it got strange.  In the next phase of the study, babies were given a choice of graham crackers or cheerios.  Once they had picked their treat, the babies were shown a puppet munching on the other snack.  That puppet was then put in the same puppet show from earlier, as the recipient of pro-social and anti-social behavior from two other puppets.  Soon after, the babies were given a choice between the two "inflictors."

Surprisingly, the babies now consistently preferred the anti-social ("bad") puppet that had "punished" the one with different snack preferences.  In other words, the babies approved when the puppet that was different from them was harmed.  This was explained by the behaviorists as indicative of a genetically formed "herd instinct" of treating those within our group pro-socially, while rejecting and punishing those that veer from our own behavior and preferences.  Baby tribalism.

     It's held today in many circles that man is born a perfectly moral creature, and that it's only our upbringings that ruin our moral centers.  However, this study has indicated that, at our genetic core, we're still tribal "us versus them" beings.  And, as one of the researchers noted, during moments of stress or weakness, we'll almost always revert to our instinctual self -- tribalism and all.  So, if our systems are coded this way from the beginning (or at least three months old,) and tend to stay that way whether we like it or not, where does this leave our moral core?

     If you were to ask the author of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, he'd say that there are two sides of man: the wild, sinful side, and the good, moral side.  It's how we fight the battle between those two sides that determines who we become.  Along the same lines, if you were to look at the Bible, it would show that, though we were created as flawless beings, corruption (sin) entered because of Adam.  Subsequently, we are corrupted, imperfect creatures with genetic defects and struggles over sin.  Like Paul the apostle said:

"So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me.  For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.  What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?  Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:21-25)

We're each born with natures that have inherent strengths and weaknesses.  But because of Christ's sacrifice, we can now be redeemed from the sinful nature we've been struggling against, Mr Hyde.

Now, if you were to ask an atheist about the "moral core," they might tell you that the same herd instinct this study has uncovered is what other people call "morality."  That pro-social behavior, they would say, is commonly mistaken as a moral core, and therefore we're still just animals with highly developed instincts.  If you were to ask C.S. Lewis, he'd say that even if there are things in our genetic makeup, inborn herd instincts, self-preservation instincts, even paternal instincts that push and pull us in different directions, the part of ourselves that governs between those instincts is the thing we call our conscious -- morality, if you will.  In Mere Christianity, he expounds on that topic:

          "For example, some people wrote to me saying, 'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?' Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct — by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires — one desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away.  Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

           Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, 'Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,' cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note."  (Mere Christianity, Chapter 2)

Lewis argues that if morality is just an instinct, why would we so frequently feel compelled to "talk" ourselves into acting upon it?  If all that works within us are various instincts, we wouldn't feel the need to strengthen certain ones.  He uses an example of self-preservation versus herding instinct.  Likewise, if we were to find ourselves acting in exclusive behavior (following our genetically encoded "us versus them" herd instinct,) it has to be something else that tells us excluding other people is inherently wrong.  Herding instincts have "good" and "bad" aspects.  But since we ultimately judge which elements of the herding instinct are "good" or "bad" morally, how can the herding instinct itself be morality?  It must be an instinct, and morality must be something else entirely.

     The Yale study has, oddly enough, confirmed that we aren't born with perfectly moral inclinations, but that our herding instinct, like so many other elements of our human/fleshly nature, can play a part in sinful behavior.  Herd instinct is something we inherit genetically, but it isn't morality itself.  Like every other thing around and in us, it can play for good or evil.  It's ultimately up to us to decide how we govern between our instincts, through our consciences -- our moral compasses.  But what a relief to know, that through God's grace, we can finally win the battle against that fleshly nature we wrestle with.

Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it.  For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. (Romans 8:12-13)