Moral Skepticism: Applying Bloom's Child Development Theory

Many who believe in moral skepticism claim that moral knowledge is impossible, and can only be learned through social indoctrination. In this essay, I will set out a systematic view on contradicting a moral skeptic through evaluating the experiments of Blooms child development theory, Zimbardo Prison Experiment as well as Giacomo Rizzolatti Mirror Neurons theory and Frans De Waal on Animal origins in morality.
I for one, most certainly believe that moral skepticism theory is undoubtedly wrong. There is a difference between moral rationalization and instinctive moral beliefs and actions which we learn as children. This moral rationalization is not in the form of social indoctrination. Humans develop abilities to perform complex cognitive processes
This proven theory emphasizes that babies possess a certain level of moral knowledge. This creates problems for moral skepticism because babies show signs of moral knowledge before they can be indoctrinated by society. The only explanation that would lead to their moral knowledge is that it is solely instinctive. . The childhood development experiments conducted by Bloom show that as children we obtain a certain level of moral understanding. The videos shown in week 10 show that Babies were able to distinctly tell the difference from the “good” and the “bad” guy. Bloom uses these findings to show that, like any adults, we reward the good and punish the bad. When a neutral character is introduced into the puppet show, babies still prefer the good, to the neutral character, and the neutral character to the bad. This can only result in babies having an instinctive moral apparatus in moral behaviour, by being able to tell the difference between good and bad.. Blooms evidence shows that babies show a certain level of empathy, in understanding why we punish the bad and reward the good, through having this sense of justice allows babies to emphasize with other crying babies, and to soothe and calm others whom are upset. Babies are the best example to prove moral skepticism wrong because they lack rational instinctive but have moral instinctive. Blooms
Moral instinctive is seen in human form and in animal form. This simply means that there is a tendency for humans and animals to develop this trait in certain environments, which predisposes us to the brain methods that conform to moral instinctive. Neurologist Marc Hauser argues that “Just as we are born with an innate knowledge of what a language is, we are born with an innate knowledge of the difference between moral and non-moral claims.” A series of studies conducted in the 1980s by Giacomo Rizzolatti at The University of Parma established that when examining the neurons on macaque monkeys when it reached out an arm to pick up fruit, the same cells lit up when the monkey watches someone else, or another animal pick of the fruit. This accidental discovery lead to the findings of mirror neurons. Neurological research undermines moral skepticism, because humans and animals react to empathy and morality, without even knowing it. Mirror neurons are located in the motor cortex of your brain, mirror neurons activate in sympathy with what the animal or human perceives in the activity and experience of others. When we see someone else acting in a particular way - smiling, yawning, weeping or angry, for example - the neurons associated with these actions in one's own motor cortex fire in response. Their activation provides a model of