Chiron

You two are using different meanings of intolerance. dk is using the literal meaning of "won't permit," whereas Guillaume is using the meaning of "won't allow for different opinions and beliefs." Bigotry leads to intolerance, and it's very difficult to shine truth on differing opinions. The attempts to shine truth may very well be met with derision and intolerance.

(rephrasing of your point) Guillaume's original point (if I read correctly) was that teaching absolute morals turns the grayscale world into a black and white picture. Sure, it turns complex things into simple things and simple things are easily understandable, but understandable != correct. A "grayscale" set of {.41, .42, .44, .47, .49, .51, .95} is not at all the same as its "black and white" simplification of {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1}. Representing the former as the latter is wrong.

I'm still on the fence in terms of what one should do about morals: give absolutes, the reasons for which won't be understood, or only correct after the fact? I'm leaning towards a blend of the two, i.e. give rules that aren't absolute, and correct after mishaps. I don't have any first-hand experience with raising a kid, though, so I'll likely be unsure for some time.

More later,
-Chiron

Chiron

The complexity of children versus adults is addressed in this thread: 'Smart' Heuristics: Why fundamentalist creationists ignore information?.

-Chiron

dk

Your comment shed some light. I would only add that a literal interpretation of intolerance is more general but not exclusive from the more narrower definition Guillaume evokes. There’s very little difference between “won’t permit” and “won’t allow”. Your analysis has shed some light on my narrow egotistical mind.
Chiron: (rephrasing of your point) Guillaume's original point (if I read correctly) was that teaching absolute morals turns the grayscale world into a black and white picture. Sure, it turns complex things into simple things and simple things are easily understandable, but understandable != correct. A "grayscale" set of {.41, .42, .44, .47, .49, .51, .95} is not at all the same as its "black and white" simplification of {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1}. Representing the former as the latter is wrong.
I'm still on the fence in terms of what one should do about morals: give absolutes, the reasons for which won't be understood, or only correct after the fact? I'm leaning towards a blend of the two, i.e. give rules that aren't absolute, and correct after mishaps. I don't have any first-hand experience with raising a kid, though, so I'll likely be unsure for some time.
dk: I don’t see the necessity of assigning good and evil with tones of black and white. Two opposing opinions or approaches often benefit form the other, in what they are lacking in themselves.

Calzaer

Has anyone else noticed that this is a statement of an absolute moral standard?

Farren

if I understand the concept of a sociopathic individual, it involves an inability to understand the needs of others. Do you believewe have no innate ability to understand or learn to understand the needs of others?

Soren

Finally, some one said it!! I read through this thread pulling my hair!

Are any of you parents? If you are, can you really *not* teach your children moral standards?

I submit that you cannot. And if you try, you will have an unruly child who always gets into to trouble, lies to you about it, and quite frankly, will never get along with anyone. The basic principle that a child lives by is "me, me, me". If you don't teach them to respect other people (a moral standard) the child will never get beyond themselves.

Where you fall on the reality of "moral standards" aside, it is from you where you're children will first learn their moral standards (whether they can do whatever the hell they want, or that they have to follow certain rules.)

The idea that moral standards "cramps" a childs creativity is simply a non-sequitur. It was said before in this thread, but I'll say it again, following moral standards allows for a firm beginning that with nurture the child and allow them to grow (healthly). When you refuse to teach them moral standards, you teach them that they can do whatever they want, irregardless of other people.

For those of you who disagree, let someone else raise you children (for the benefit of the child and society) (Please note, I say this half in jest, please don't attack me here )

seeking truth,

soren

Chiron

Soren: "Are any of you parents? If you are, can you really *not* teach your children moral standards?"
The issue isn't teaching morals, but teaching absolute morals -- and the word "teach" is used in the sense of "sitting down and instructing," not in the sense of "learning by example."

And anyway, though the statement "It's wrong to teach children absolute moral standards" can be taken as an absolute moral standard, people here aren't attempting to teach this statement as absolute to children (which is why Calzaer suffixed the post with a , I'd think).

-Chiron

Soren

Chiron,

Thank you for the clarification. If this is the case then I think we can work on the following principle: You should only teach children the truth. (If there are absolute moral standards, then yes, you should teach them; if there are not, then no you shouldn't). Can we agree on this principle? If so, is this an absolute moral standard? (Or is it sometimes right to teach your children lies? (Maybe, santa?))

I look forward to your insights....

Seeking truth,

Soren