Morals for Children

[bschu]

I am new to the boards, and philosophy in general. Please take it easy on me if I am going against the grain.

 

I was thinking about "choice" in morals and ethics, and how not much of these things came up in my primary education. And there was very little philosophy in my life from a young age.

 

I was raised Catholic but went to a public school. Currently I am atheist and nearing 40. In Catholicism of course morals are "given" to you, like programming code written into a software, not to be argued. In public school, at least those I attended, these things were not taught as far as I can recall (surprise), ethics was a class on how to behave under the law, and I would assume this pattern would be true for most public school systems in the US.

 

But now that I apply thought to it I seem to think that morals are a choice in decision making which one stands by without waver... Or, seeing a particular choice as clear as a fact such as "the sky is blue" might seem analogous to "Do not murder" for most people. Not to be confused with opinions, but based on a code of conduct which enables one to believe they are doing things to the betterment of themselves and 'the whole', with 'the whole' being a variable from society, to family, friends, loved ones, etc.

 

Having come from a very traditional and/or religious family it was no easy task of finding myself, and being different. And with all the matters going on in the world today of "beheadings for infidels" and such. I can only imagine what someone must be going through right now, when in fact, morals should be "a choice" by virtue of their own nature, a human mind's inner desire to make its own choices and function upon them.

 

Questions I have are:

 

Do you believe Morals should to be taught to children as a primary set of instructions?

 

If yes, in schools? or only within family or private institutions?

 

If no, why not?

 

Same questions above for Philosophy in general?

 

Do you think people tend to fear exposing children to the "choice" aspect of morals in fear that they might make bad decisions? (e.g. Deciding it is okay to steal at a young age despite punishment...)

 

[Will Torbald]

I think that when it comes to teaching morality to children, the challenge isn't what to tell them, but that they will very quickly find out that the world and most adults don't follow any morality at all. It is very easy to learn "don't attack people, only in self defense", but they would know that a rule also applies to the rule maker, and with all the spanking and punishments and governments and criminals and jealous gods and so on - they will also very quickly ask "why should I bother if no one else is moral?".

[dsayers]

Do you believe Morals should to be taught to children as a primary set of instructions?

Children should be taught HOW to think, not what to think. Do this and they will arrive upon sound conclusions on their own. A person that understands that other humans are people too will not be able to steal, assault, rape, or murder.

[Jot]

Children should be taught HOW to think, not what to think. Do this and they will arrive upon sound conclusions on their own. A person that understands that other humans are people too will not be able to steal, assault, rape, or murder.

Do they need to be taught how to think at all? Is this not something they are born to do...and do it properly in the absence of abuse?

[dsayers]

Do they need to be taught how to think at all? Is this not something they are born to do...and do it properly in the absence of abuse?

In many ways, I think this is true. Allison Gopnik's work has shown that humans are naturally empathetic, which makes sense given that we are social creatures. Still, "I want X, but Billy has X right now" presents competing impulses, and guidance can help a child to process it easier. One of my favorite things about my self-knowledge journey is the ways in which things I always felt were true are things I can now explain in clear language. "Teaching children how to think" is a way of providing this. Does that make sense?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Podcast 1813, "izzy achieves UPB" is relevant here. I just had a listen recently and it was really insightful

[Jot]

In many ways, I think this is true. Allison Gopnik's work has shown that humans are naturally empathetic, which makes sense given that we are social creatures. Still, "I want X, but Billy has X right now" presents competing impulses, and guidance can help a child to process it easier. One of my favorite things about my self-knowledge journey is the ways in which things I always felt were true are things I can now explain in clear language. "Teaching children how to think" is a way of providing this. Does that make sense?

Yes it does. Thank you.

[Mister Mister]

You teach kids to think the same way you "teach" them to walk.  You provide support and minor corrections here and there, but they'll figure it out in the long run.

[brucethecollie]

I think it's hard to teach kids how to think in the midst of so much counter information.  Kid tv shows, school, pop culture, other people's kids, all try to infect your child with illogical ways of thinking and feeling.  I try to model moral behavior to my kids alongside my husband.  They learn well from that.  A happy home will convince them that mom and dad's ways are the logical ones to imitate and follow.  But man is the pressure on!  My kids are 6.5 years old and challenges are starting to really seep in.  

[Mister Mister]

I think it's hard to teach kids how to think in the midst of so much counter information.  Kid tv shows, school, pop culture, other people's kids, all try to infect your child with illogical ways of thinking and feeling.  I try to model moral behavior to my kids alongside my husband.  They learn well from that.  A happy home will convince them that mom and dad's ways are the logical ones to imitate and follow.  But man is the pressure on!  My kids are 6.5 years old and challenges are starting to really seep in.  

 Wow your kids are so lucky, I hope you appreciate that.  Can you tell us more about this?

[brucethecollie]

 Wow your kids are so lucky, I hope you appreciate that.  Can you tell us more about this?

Thank you for the kind words     

 

I've learned that the normal and healthy thing for children to do as they grow older is to inch away from parents.  They want to be close to their parents and have access to them when they need them but they long to discover the world.  So kids like to meet other kids and to explore what they know.  Kids like to investigate the world around them and are drawn to new things, even if those things might not be a good influence.  

 

So at this age (6) I find that I have to recognize that children need to go and mingle with others.  They get lonely if they don't-no matter how fun and nice mom and dad are.  I've noticed how a somewhat negative experience will still be a teacher and call them back again.  For example, spending time with kids that annoy them a little won't make them decide not to see those kids again.  Instead, they will yearn to play with those kids anyway because there is still value there for them.  So as a parent, it feels like a fine line between keeping them from certain influences (an act they perceive negatively as control which is another challenge) and allowing them normal life experiences that include what I suppose are growing pains that come from figuring how to deal with many different people and many different scenarios.  

 

I've read that when children shut the door of their room while playing, they are exercising independence.  They don't want a parent's head popping in saying, "do you need anything?" or "how's it going?"  Kids at this age start to experience some weight of the world because of what they start to learn and understand.  Recently, my children learned that people kill each other and that was a very heavy realization for them.  

 

So, what i'm speaking about is all really normal stuff, it's just stuff a parent can't fix for their child, they have to live, learn, struggle, suffer, and get past things.  Of course, we can support children but when they are two, we can cuddle them and pretty much make any problem go away with some patience.  Now, their independence sets in, they start to wander further away, and their worries become larger.  And, for me, it's less physically challenging but more psychologically challenging than the earlier years.  I'm really sensitive so I'm sure that contributes to my opinion here, I'm sure

 

So anyway, I think that's why I feel that modeling behavior is the most important way of teaching children.  Words that end up being hypocritical end up making children very bitter with adults.  And instead of mostly imitating and following peers, we want children to follow us more knowledgeable and experienced adults.  

[Frederik]

Thank you for the kind words     

 

I've learned that the normal and healthy thing for children to do as they grow older is to inch away from parents.  They want to be close to their parents and have access to them when they need them but they long to discover the world.  So kids like to meet other kids and to explore what they know.  Kids like to investigate the world around them and are drawn to new things, even if those things might not be a good influence.  

 

So at this age (6) I find that I have to recognize that children need to go and mingle with others.  They get lonely if they don't-no matter how fun and nice mom and dad are.  I've noticed how a somewhat negative experience will still be a teacher and call them back again.  For example, spending time with kids that annoy them a little won't make them decide not to see those kids again.  Instead, they will yearn to play with those kids anyway because there is still value there for them.  So as a parent, it feels like a fine line between keeping them from certain influences (an act they perceive negatively as control which is another challenge) and allowing them normal life experiences that include what I suppose are growing pains that come from figuring how to deal with many different people and many different scenarios.  

 

I've read that when children shut the door of their room while playing, they are exercising independence.  They don't want a parent's head popping in saying, "do you need anything?" or "how's it going?"  Kids at this age start to experience some weight of the world because of what they start to learn and understand.  Recently, my children learned that people kill each other and that was a very heavy realization for them.  

 

So, what i'm speaking about is all really normal stuff, it's just stuff a parent can't fix for their child, they have to live, learn, struggle, suffer, and get past things.  Of course, we can support children but when they are two, we can cuddle them and pretty much make any problem go away with some patience.  Now, their independence sets in, they start to wander further away, and their worries become larger.  And, for me, it's less physically challenging but more psychologically challenging than the earlier years.  I'm really sensitive so I'm sure that contributes to my opinion here, I'm sure

 

So anyway, I think that's why I feel that modeling behavior is the most important way of teaching children.  Words that end up being hypocritical end up making children very bitter with adults.  And instead of mostly imitating and following peers, we want children to follow us more knowledgeable and experienced adults.  

 

Wonderful! Thank you so much for sharing. Your children are blessed to have such an empathetic and kind mother

[DaviesMa]

Teaching children moral instructions is a problem because it makes moral appear to be arbitary, even if they are based in philosophy, which creates an issue when passed down from generation to generation. We see this with Christian morality where the absence of Christianity often leads to the abandonment of morality, even if some of this morality would be beneficial in the long term for the person.

 

I may be oversimplifying but strictly in terms of morality, we only have to teach our childrent that they do not have the right to expect others to do things thorugh compulsion, as they should not be expected to do things through compulsion either. This means not hitting, stealing toys or verbally bullying other children. Instead everything that they request from someone else should be win-win, this means that if they want another child to cooperate then they must offer value in return, either through friendship or a trade.

 

This is sometimes a difficult transition for children as not only do adults start by providing everything, they also put children into school environments without the child's consent and the child is forced for 6 hours a day to obey others.

 

 

All the rest of the parenthood is not morality but instruction. We teach children to be friendly as it benefits then and their relationships, we teach children to brush their teeth to prevent tooth decay and we teach manners so as to not offend others, to the detriment of themselves. All these instructions can be seen as being designed to help the child lead a better life.

 

Parents often cross the line when they ask children to do things that are purely for the parents benefit and dress it up as the right thing to do. For example if a child doesn't want to share their toy with a child they don't like but the parent insists to be  'polite' or if the child is chastised for making noise because it annoys the parent.

[neeeel]

 Instead everything that they request from someone else should be win-win, this means that if they want another child to cooperate then they must offer value in return, either through friendship or a trade.

 

 

I am not saying that I disagree with you, or that you are wrong, but my response, if I was a child and being instructed in the above quote, would be "why?"

[dsayers]

Teaching children moral instructions is a problem because it makes moral appear to be arbitary,

 

Instead everything that they request from someone else should be win-win, this means that if they want another child to cooperate then they must offer value in return, either through friendship or a trade.

This seems to be contradictory. Because your second statement is true, it is revealed that the first statement is false. There's nothing arbitrary about people being equal in terms of rights.