Children Exhibit Moral Behavior, But Are Not Morally Praiseworthy.

The position on offer is that children, while they exhibit moral behavior, are not morally praisworthy (or blameworthy) for said behavior. I affirm. A caveat - some issues arose in the comment field of the last debate on this topic (where Yraelz forfeited). I wish to address the age of the children and the topic of moral intent... 1) On the Age of Children. Simply put, "children" in this case refers to individuals that lack sufficient cognitive skills to make complicated inferences regarding 3rd person perspective-taking. A good age to work with for purpose of common ground might be 7 years old. 2) On Moral Intent Xera asked if I was of the opinion that moral intent had anything to do with this debate. Rather than concede that moral intent exists in humanity (because of a tricky semantic battle...) I will say that I concede intent exists, and the content of this intent is separate from the fact that intent can exist in an action. This content can be moral, amoral, or immoral when viewed in the framework of the Resolution. ********************* It is instrumental to first understand what children ARE doing as opposed to what one might SAY they are doing. In order to make a moral judgment about something from a first-person (or 3rd-person) perspective, one must recognize that society conforms to a certain set of rules. These rules are not subject to cross-cultural relativism because the same rules are recognized cross-culturally to have a significant practical clout. The difference between the non-relative and relative rules is the distinction of a harm norm as opposed to some other societal norm or convention. For example when you slurp your soup (in the United States) this violates an etiquette norm. In some cultures, this is normal behavior. However, in all cultures, when you murder someone, this is a violation of a harm norm. There is very little, if any, relativism in harm norms, all of which can be explained away as socialization on the adult individual in that culture. When one recognizes that a rule or behavior transcends convention or societal norms, this is called making the Moral/Conventional distinction. Once one has made the distinction, one has recognized that there are certain rules that have more clout than others. As adults, and IN adults we consider this to be a moral distinction. However, when the same behaviors are exhibited in animals (for example, a chimp responding to a distress cue of another chimp by bringing it a banana), we consider these behaviors to be the result of their genetic predispositions. When children exhibit the same behavior, some are willing to attribute it to the child making a moral distinction. I am not. ************************** I propose two scenarios for consideration: (i) A child hears the crying of another child and offers the distressed child a blanket or other comfort item (ii) A child recognizes that pulling another child's hair is bad, regardless of whether or not the teacher (parents, even god) states otherwise. ************************** In both scenarios, I concede that the child is exhibiting moral behavior, much in the same way one could exhibit altruistic BEHAVIOR without altruistic or moral intentions. However, in the first scenario, while exhibiting moral behavior, the child is simply responding the way an evolutionary mechanism has "programmed" them to do - respond to others in distress because that trait is confers reproductive advantages on members of the community. In the second scenario, even though the child realizes that the rule has meaning beyond what an authority figure states, the child is still acting from a sense of "3rd-person-mind-reading" if you will. The child recognizes that the action it is performing would have negative effects were the same action performed on it. Basically, the child doesn't hit others because it knows that increases the chance that people will hit it back. The same behavior can be seen in chimps when they track which chimps groom other chimps and which ones neglect their fellows. ********************* I'd actually like the leave the topic there for now because it can go a number of different ways, and I don't want to steer the conversation too much with my opening argument. A condensed version of my argument might follow: (1) Children are able to recognize that some rules have more clout than others. (2) Evolutionary forces play a part in this. (3) Self-preservation instinct and a "Do-Unto-Others" sense do as well. (4) A necessary component to making moral judgment is motivation. (5) Children are not aware of the motivation's source or type. (6) Thus, children cannot make moral judgment, but CAN make the M/C distinction. (7) Therefore, while exhibiting moral behavior, they are not morally praiseworthy for it.