Jamie_L

dk:

I get what you are trying to say. Maybe I made some poor word choices with unintended connotations.

However, if you honestly believe that a 2 or 3-year-old can understand complex issues as well as adults, you are fooling yourself. I have a 2 and a 3-year-old at home. I love them dearly, and I interact with them with as intelligently as I can. However, there are clearly limits, and I run into them all the time.

You can teach a 3-year-old not to hit people or to lie. You cannot teach them a graduate-level course on the philosophical underpinnings of morality.

Jamie

dk

I gotcha, and agree at an adult level. My basic point has been that a 3 year old knows how to lie, so can't be taught to lie. Not only does a 3yr old know how to lie, but when they lie they consciously know it. But when a 3yr old tells a lie they aren't committed to it, whereas when an adult tells a lie they often do so with a commitment. This is a very subtle but very important distinction.

No parent, adult or school teaches a child to lie, but we can teach our children to lie with commitment, or commit themselves to truth. So its not the lie that is important, its the commitment follows a lie. That's what's meant by, "The truth will set you free". It means to set a person free from the lies they've committed themselves too.

Jamie_L

I see. I'll agree with you there. We may have been arguing different things at each other. My point was merely that when raising children, you often have to teach them what to do/not to do before you can teach them the detailed reasons why they shouldn't do those things.

As this pertains to the OP, I think parents are pretty much forced to teach morality as instruction in order to raise children that behave and aren't monsters.

Jamie

pleasant_darktwist

God Help Me, I agree with DK and JAIME.

What I mean is, I agree with Jaime that young children need to be taught certain absoultes like don't steal, don't harm, don't lie, etc. Because it is from these rules that arguments, variations, and alternatives are broached.


I also agree with DK, that children lie naturally, and that in a certain way are 'smarter' than adults. Kids see the world in a way that is not corrupted or shaped by parents, culture, religion, etc. It is unfortunate that most of education is 'unlearning' meaning the cost of communication and interaction a certain level of lost freedom of perception.

As to a child lying consciously, I agree this happens, must say that part of adulthood is responsibility, and one can only take responsiblity for one's actions, if one is honest about the part they have played. EXAMPLE:

::crash::

MOM: Billy, what was that?

BILLY: Your lamp is broken.

::mom comes in the room, sees lamp in pieces on the floor::

MOM: Billy did you break the lamp.

BILLY: No

::the assumption here is that Billy did indeed break the lamp::

MOM: Billy? Tell the truth?

BILLY: I did it.

MOM: Why did you lie?

BILLY: Didn't want to get in trouble.

Mom obviously needs to teach Billy a couple of things:

1) It may not be wrong to lie, but it is better to tell the truth for two reasons:
Other people will be able to trust you,
And Billy will not forget himself, what the truth is (read: what really happened and the part he played).

2) Part of being an adult is being able to own up to "trouble," admitting one is wrong or at least made a poor decision. It is very true that those who can admit their own faults may better develop themselves and their sense of right and wrong.

In other words, if one always lies, one never excepts the consequences or responsiblities, and in a sense, never 'makes mistakes' and can never learn from those choices.

Of course one can argue specifics and necessities for lies, and this statement is not intended to be all inclusive. Rather it is a point of view about 'standards' and why in society they are necessary.

The easiest way to explain this is in a math metaphor:

If a person is allowed to make up their own definition/symbol for numbers or signs or functions, they can do math, just not with anybody else. It ESPECIALLY inhibits any MEANINGFUL interaction with another person, sort of like speaking a different language, including motions, symbols, rules, body language, etc.

Part of being 'socialized' is losing a certain level of individual freedom, physical and mental, in an attempt to make certain levels of contact 'generic.' This is at the root of the 'social contract.' It also covers certain levels of implied consent (language), and acutal consent (obey laws).

Hope this clears up my point of view. See DK, I'm not anti-family.

Peace.

Jon Curry

If it's wrong to teach children about moral standards, wouldn't it also be wrong to teach children that it is wrong to teach children about moral standards?

meritocrat

Children should be encouraged to develop their own personality. This includes forming a distinct morality.

LostGirl

Funnily enough, this reminds me of a concept termed 'lies - to - children' I came across in a book (highly reccomended, btw) called The Science of Discworld Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. It's actually in the SF section under PR-- but it's mainly a treatise explaining the state of our knowledge about the universe, ourselves, and this world, and how we know what we know.

And, it's pretty funny.

But back to lies-to-children. Whenever we're first taught a concept (say, what's a rainbow?) the first explanation we're given is to help us wrap our minds around the idea; get used to it. By using a simplistic explanation (ie; this is a prism, children, look how it splits up the light into a rainbow. Look at how this drop of water can do the same thing! aaaah) we not only get through the process of understanding the explanation as we learn it (by using concepts we already "own") but also, that having understood the simple explanation, we can examine it as a whole and make additions to it. (The simplistic explanation for a rainbow doesn't even address the remarkable thing about rainbows: the coherence of the diffraction in a 'macro-arc' across the sky)
The first, simplistic explanation we're given is often out and out wrong. It's a lie in all intents and purposes, because someone with a fuller understading of what's involved will admit that that's not the whole story. I don't know how many times in school I learned how to do something one way, only to learn the next year that it was basically wrong or not the way things actually worked, or just a far less useful solution than this year's syllabus. However, I couldn't have understood the concepts in the more advanced study without the fundamentally incorrect basics to build upon.

Absolute moral prescriptions tend to be wrong in particular situations. Telling children it's WRONG to lie, is a lie itself, because sometimes it's not wrong, or right. Sometimes lying is neutral. But you can't start from that place; first you have to learn that lying is WRONG and then, with experience you find out that sometimes it's not, and everyone knew it all along. However, the first lesson is a lie-to-children like everything else we teach.

I hope I've adequately explained this concept. Again, it's not an actual lie; but simplistic explanation that, with more refined knowledge cannot be said to be "true".

Jamie_L

Yes and no. Yes, parents shouldn't try to completely mold their children into something they aren't. No, children can't develop their personality entirely on their own without some guidance.

Children need parents to guide their development. Instilling in children a sense of right and wrong is an important part of maintaining social order and raising kids who won't be psychopathic monsters - which also means its important to the kids, because they aren't likely to have happy, healthy lives if they are emotionally maladjusted.

Kids have parents for a reason. And part of that reason is to help shape their personalities. That's just the way human beings work.

Jamie

Guillaume

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.
   Guillaume: What you call "rationalization", once examined, are really illogical justification.
   Note : You speak of "unacceptable conduct". I argue that such thing does not exist.
   
   
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.
   Guillaume: You know nothing of how I teach children, so don't make personal attacks when you have nothing to back them up.
   
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.
   Guillaume:
   You are mistaken. Never did I directly link disagreement or agreement with innovation. What I said is that it is impossible to correct fallacy and make improvement to a person’s arguments or theory if you considerer this person to be a priori right because he is considered “superior”. In other words, it is impossible to innovate if you believe the emperor to have clothes.
   
   
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.
   Guillaume: Indeed, children needs to understand that truth doesn’t center upon their opinion, and that’s why teaching morals to a child is very harmful : without proper justification, morals are nothing more than opinions and teaching them is akin to teach the child that truth center upon opinions.
   
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.
   Guillaume: “Thinking for yourself” means questioning and not taking for granted what others teach.
   Note : Delusions may be unmasked by truth, but logical reasoning prevent them altogether.
   
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.
   Guillaume: People do not ignore difficult questions because they lack a methodical method. A enthusiasm “problem solver” will create himself a method to solve difficult questions if he does not have one already. Intellectual laziness, which is the result of a mind accustomed to receive answers “for free”, is what causes the contentment of ignorance . Still, I do agree that minds need to be “trained” somewhat. This is why it is so important to make children think instead of denying them “training”.
   Note : I argue that minds need not to be trained to be methodical, but instead should be trained to question everything, even what is “evident”.
   
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.
   Guillaume: I don’t see why it is so important to ( get the illusion to ) “understand” the world, apparently “at all cost”. Personally , I consider that having an incorrect and un-complex understanding of the world is far more damaging than not comprehending the world. He who admit not to understand the world will continue to study it, while those who are convinced of knowing it will be imprisoned by their flawed views .

yguy

Perhaps you'd care to clarify that just a tad.