fatherphil

without an absolute morality, how can you condemn a sociopath who is able to justify his actions in his own mind?

Chiron

Dammit, Guillaume, you've just made me recognize the flaws in my views. Now I have to rethink them.

New views: I (now) think I agree that teaching things as absolutes is bad, because of the seven points you outlined.
Therefore, the best way (I think) is to start from day one teaching the kid that all things are relative (as I've said elsewhere but for some reason didn't apply here, the best way to prepare kids for reality is to give 'em reality: it's generally detrimental to create disparities between the world and the kid's image of the world, though within limits like "don't expose them to violent death from day one"). I still think that in the situations young children will find themselves, lying and stealing are very probably going to be wrong, but I don't know how I would teach this. I guess the best way is to provide feedback, rather than complicated rules.

fatherphil: "without an absolute morality, how can you condemn a sociopath who is able to justify his actions in his own mind?"
By condemning him based upon his actions and the surrounding circumstances. The rest of society provides the measure what is condoned and what is condemned, I think.

Still thinking,
-Chiron

fatherphil

this might force me to condone various genocides of history because it was the norm of the day.

i never had a problem saying that the murder of native american populations was morally wrong before.

meritocrat

A peculiar statement for one who doesn't comprehend the notion of not harming others.

dk

Chiron: "Its wrong to teach a child to lie, and it is wrong to rationalize a child's lies with blame."
I just re-read this, and I can't understand the second half of the sentence. Could you explain?

Truth nourishes the intellect, in the same way that good food nourishes the body. A rationalization is a reason for unacceptable conduct.

When anyone lies, including me, it makes us uncomfortable like eating a pound of candy, it doesn’t sit well. To feel better we need to make the lie believable with a justification, through a rationalization. The easiest way to justify a lie is to rationalize it by blaming someone else for the lie we told. If in raising a kid you can prevent them from blaming someone else (for the lie they told) then the kid naturally learns to tell the truth for all the right reasons, then out of habit, which is of course a virtue.

So the second half means don't blame a child for telling a like, that would be a rationalization in itself, but don't allow the child to blame anyone else. The kid needs to figure it out, to know the truth suits them. That's the beauty of the Socratic method.

Jamie_L

Children are not adults. They don't have the same complexity of thought processes that we do. At early ages it is virtually impossible to teach a child any kind of situational ethics. The end result will simply be a confused child or one who feels they can do whatever they want whenever it suits them.

It's always best to teach people (adults too) what the "rules" are first, and later teach them when and how it is acceptable to bend or break the rules. This goes for many things, not just morality. For instance, in writing, there are many accepted rules of style and grammar. Many successful authors violate all kinds of these rules. However, if you don't learn the rules before you decide how to break them, you are unlikely to create something masterful - rather, you are more likely to create a mess in which the rules are violated for no particular reason or purpose.

Jamie

dk

1. Guillaume: It teaches that logical justifications are unnecessary and that it is ok to accept something just because your family and friends believe it.
   dk: A logical justification for unacceptable conduct is called rationalization. The lesson teaches a child they can justify wrongful acts by making excuses.
2. Guillaume: It destroys creativity: the child no longer imagines new possibilities and merely settles with what people around him think.
   dk: That may be how you think, you’ve made a rationalization to teach a child to think like you, and have become the pot calling the kettle black.
3. Guillaume: It teaches that blindly agreeing with someone viewed as “superior” is desirable, effectively making innovation impossible.
   dk: We may agree or not, and whether we agree or not doesn’t make my answer any more or less innovative. If we agree disagreements provoke innovations, have we failed to be innovative? I think not. Your statement suffers from the fallacy of an undistributed middle, you’ve wrongfully asserted agreement/disagreement connects to innovation.
4. Guillaume: While teaching absolute morals, parents openly condemn and show contempt those who do not follow their standards. This teaches the child that he should hate those who do not agree with him, effectively leading him to intolerance and bigotry.
   dk: Intolerance has an infinite number of roots, and bigotry is certainly one, but again intolerance and bigotry aren’t necessarily connected. For example a perfectionist might be intolerant of sloppy work, and not be a bigot. Bigotry is a state of mind devoted to a personal opinion that demeans others. Truth exposes a bigots narrow perspective, so that they might grow beyond the limits of personal ego. Children are egotistical, and naturally view the world from a narrow perspective, and as a child matures they need to understand that truth doesn’t center upon their opinion, otherwise they will grow up to become a bigot.
5. Guillaume: It teaches the child that thinking for yourself is a waste of time: you just need to ask others for answers.
   dk: I have no idea what, “Thinking for yourself means”. A person that believes they can think for others is delusional, but no more delusional than a person that believes others can think for them. Its truth that unmasks our delusions, and lies that perpetuate them.
6. Guillaume: Asking question is viewed as a mark of inferiority, as a lack of “knowledge”, so the child no longer question and merely accept pre-made answers.
   dk: I submit, difficult questions aren’t easily answered, but a mind properly trained breaks difficult question into smaller easier questions that approach the truth methodically an inch at a time. Untrained minds ignore difficult questions because they find contemplation futile. Children are born with untrained minds hungry and nourished by truth.
7. Guillaume: It forces children to view the world in a simplistic black and white way : good vs evil, us vs them, etc.
   dk: Good and evil provide the order that make a complex world understandable, not simplistic.

dk

Hi Jamie,
I have to disagree. First, because children aren’t adults in now way comments on the complexity of their thought processes. Infants are born completely helpless but with consciousness. Human consciousness defies definition precisely because of its complexity. While a infant or child may appear to be simple minded they aren’t. I would argue kids are smarter than adults because they absorb nuances adults can not even perceive, much less articulate. I submit every interaction between a infant and adult, whether intentional or not, convey a lesson to the infant, that usually flies right over the adults head. .
Rules have rules that have rules. When a child tells a lie it’s not a random event, or an accident but a rationalization. An adult can’t teach a kid about lies, except how to lie properly, because a kid can’t tell a lie without being conscious of it. What makes lies destructive to a child is they mask the truth with obscurity impossible to penetrate, and therefore become an obstacle to the development of the child’s potential.

Jamie_L

Well, I wasn't using their age to comment on their complexity. I was using my experience with young children to comment on their complexity. Of course their thought processes aren't "simple". However, I think it is absurd to say a 3-year-old can engage in a complex discussion about morality, or any other topic.

For example: Strangers. Many parents spend lots of time trying to teach their very young children about the dangers of interacting with people they don't know. Yet, it's been proven time and time again that children don't understand enough of this to protect themselves. Clever people can easily short-circuit a child's understanding of "strangers". The preschool my 3-year-old attends actually advises parents not to try to teach their children to be wary of strangers, because the confusion can instill a fear of all people, and all interaction that can stunt a child's social development. Essentially, they advise, a child can't understand the difference between a good stranger and a bad stranger, or why sometimes it's acceptable to deal with strangers (like a store clerk) but not other times (like, say, meeting that same clerk on a sidewalk after school).

Certainly this changes as children get older. However, when you first have to start teaching kids about lying, they are too young to understand complex ethics.

Jamie

dk

Originally posted by Jamie_L
Well, I wasn't using their age to comment on their complexity. I was using my experience with young children to comment on their complexity. Of course their thought processes aren't "simple". However, I think it is absurd to say a 3-year-old can engage in a complex discussion about morality, or any other topic.
dk: I'don't see how its possible for children to be mentally complex, yet found to be simple. I do agree children on the surface appear to simple and unsophisticated, but below the surface waters run extremely deep with currents so complex we can only hope guess.


Originally posted by Jamie_L
For example: Strangers. Many parents spend lots of time trying to teach their very young children about the dangers of interacting with people they don't know. Yet, it's been proven time and time again that children don't understand enough of this to protect themselves. Clever people can easily short-circuit a child's understanding of "strangers". The preschool my 3-year-old attends actually advises parents not to try to teach their children to be wary of strangers, because the confusion can instill a fear of all people, and all interaction that can stunt a child's social development. Essentially, they advise, a child can't understand the difference between a good stranger and a bad stranger, or why sometimes it's acceptable to deal with strangers (like a store clerk) but not other times (like, say, meeting that same clerk on a sidewalk after school).
dk
Magicians, carnies, politicians and artisans reliably fool adults to their delight and chagrin. I don’t believe complexity has anything to do with it. It appears to me many adults are practiced at the art of deceptions. Most have as much success with adults as kids. I think its a child’s vulnerability not complexity that makes the difference.


Originally posted by Jamie_L
Certainly this changes as children get older. However, when you first have to start teaching kids about lying, they are too young to understand complex ethics.
dk
I argue children often teach adults more about living than visa versa.