Can you be a responsible parent and never teach morality?

[ch33zw1z]

That sort of begs the question:

Can you be a responsible parent and not be able to teach morality[seeing as some of it is inherent]? Parenting is always brought up when a child[at whatever age] does wrong so how do you respond to that? Is it so black and white that if they do something bad, you failed as a parent? I think it's a bit shortsighted at times but it's always the first issue to be brought up.

Of course, IMO it all comes down to the classic Nature vs. Nuture. You can nuture two kids the exact same, one may become a funtional member of society while the other does not due to the nature of the child in question. It's not always the parents fault, but it's the common conception that blame must be placed on the people naturally assumed to have the most direct impact on that child's life to which I do agree...and someday that may bite me in the ass

 

[vi edit]

Yea, but unless they're socio/psychopaths they know better. Knowing morality, and practicing morality are different things. As long as morality/immorality don't get purposely confused by a teacher(parent), the child will know what is moral. Whether they practice that is a whole other matter

Excellent point. Knowing != practicing. But I still stand by my beliefs that no matter how hard you try, some kids are going to work against you. That's no excuse for not trying though.

 

[darkxshade]

some kids are going to work against you.

That might just mean external influences has had more of an effect on them than yours. It's sort of like a balancing scale, with nothing on it it's even, they should know the basics of right and wrong. But one one end of the scale you have the parents who try to stack more weight to let it weigh heavier on the right side but that can be countered by the negative influences that may cause the scale to tip more to the wrong side.

 

[waggy]

I don't see how its possible to NOT teach them morility. it may not be the same type i teach my kids but every parent is going to teach it.

 

[lxskllr]

People are inherently flawed; some more than others. It's a constant battle between doing what's right, and doing what's best for me. Some people are better at controlling themselves than others, just like some people are better at music, math, art, whatever... I think that anyone who does the right thing solely out of fear of punishment is flawed, and a poor example of proper behavior. People that make an honest effort of doing the right thing for it's own sake are the better example.

 

[ixelion]

I think we are all saying basically the same thing but I think the following point should be considered:

"Be a good worker" or "be a good student" is a moral that is commonly taught to children. In some cultures these morals are extremely important, and failure in these areas labels one as a deviant or an outcast.

Contrast to other cultures where "hard work" is a good thing but by no means necessary to maintain social participation.

You don't have to teach children these values, nor would they be necessarily happier if you did. This kind of morality exists to fulfill some external obligation, and has no intrinsic value, which is why I don't believe in it.

The other kind of morality:

I don't want to be killed so don't kill others.

This is not taught by parents, it is given to you by nature it's called empathy, and if you don't have it something has gone terribly wrong. Either you were not wired right or some childhood abuse rendered you apathetic to others' pain.

 

[vi edit]

"Be a good worker" or "be a good student" is a moral that is commonly taught to children. In some cultures these morals are extremely important, and failure in these areas labels one as a deviant, an outcast. Contrast to other cultures where "hard work" is a good thing but by no means necessary for a life well lived. You don't have to teach children this, nor would they be necessarily happier if you did. This kind of morality exists to fulfill some external obligation, and has no intrinsic value. This is why I don;t believe in it.

To me that isn't a moral. It's just setting my children up for an easier future. Instilling a work ethic or enjoyment in studies simply opens more doors for them. If I *DIDN'T* want a good future for my kids then I have absolutely no value being a parent.

 

[destrekor]

When I think about it you can really talk about two kinds of morality. One that derives from basic survival instinct, this would include the Golden Rule, this type of morality should be taught (although maybe it doesn't need to be, are we born with it?)

The second type derives from social values which exist solely to maintain whatever rules we have agreed upon to maintain a society (at it's roots this was intended to promote survival through cooperation - but some have used it to exploit others for their own gain). I don't believe in teaching children this type of morality.

But herein lies the problem good parents must enforce the second type of morality, which I don't believe

So... what you're saying is that you refuse to teach your children how to cooperate and peacefully coexist within society, according to how the local society sees things?

I agree and disagree with that concept.

There are some things that are societal, that need to be taught, or learned somehow. There are other things society will believe, but are rather meh. It all depends, each person will see the society as a whole quite differently, with something likely to be grounds for nitpicking. Laws, for instance, are largely based on the wishes of society.

Do you want to raise a little rebellious hellspawn? Is that your idea of contributing to civilization?
Just saying, because that's the drift I'm catching.
You don't agree with social morality, so you won't teach it. Next thing you know, you get a little 10 year old causing trouble because his parents raised him in a way that is conducive to creating a rebel of society.

That is no way to give your kid the best chance for success in the very society every human depends upon. You depend upon society to earn a living.
Being instilled with the idea of bucking the system, from day 1, is only going to cause a lot of problems. And a ton of moral dilemmas for such a child, which can breed personality changes that may not be all that helpful, ones that can cause personal choice problems.

Raise the kid according to society's moral base, and go from there. As the kid ages, you can gauge the personality, see what beliefs you have may or may not cause problems.

The kid may be entirely opposite of you for all you know.

Raise the kid in such a way that will give him the best platform for growth and acceptance by society. That, imho, is absolutely the best base mold for youth. At a certain age, that youth will definitely start to shape themselves and carve their own path through life. At that point, the parent is no longer shaping the mold, but trying to moderate and regulate the child's path. It's fluid, but as a child ages they definitely have more weight on the choices they make versus the parents. Being prepared for society is the most important thing, and a child will make of that what they want. Preparing a child to rebel against society from day 1 is only asking for trouble.

 

[darkxshade]

Perhaps then we should consider anything that is inherently known for right/wrong as morality[cannot be taught] and that everything else should be called ethics?

People should already know that killing or stealing is bad without it being taught but whether they do it or not could be influenced by whether their parents taught them to save up to buy what they need or how to treat others, etc.

 

[ixelion]

To me that isn't a moral. It's just setting my children up for an easier future. Instilling a work ethic or enjoyment in studies simply opens more doors for them. If I *DIDN'T* want a good future for my kids then I have absolutely no value being a parent.

Yes but the point is, teaching your children to have a good work ethic with the ultimate goal of material comfort, is a basic value that most people believe is intrinsically good when it is not. It is taken for granted that these things are necessarily good, they are not necessarily bad, but they are not guaranteed to make one happy.

If I don't teach this to my kids then according to society I am a bad parent. But is this really the case?

 

[lxskllr]

I kind of got sidetracked after you clarified with your second post, I was still going off on a tangent :^D

For teaching societal rules that don't involve morality, I'd show both paths, and let the child choose which one to take. For my part, I teach my daughter to question authority, and not take somebody's word on something just because they're a (usually self placed)superior. I also teach her to work hard, and if she's going to do something, it needs to be done to the best of her ability. She knows the detriments of not towing the party line, and she can make her mind up later which path to follow. For me, I believe teaching thinking skills and critical analysis is better than teaching what'll make for the easiest coast through life. It's better to be a successful individual than a successful cog imo.

 

[ixelion]

There are some things that are societal, that need to be taught, or learned somehow. There are other things society will believe, but are rather meh. It all depends, each person will see the society as a whole quite differently, with something likely to be grounds for nitpicking. Laws, for instance, are largely based on the wishes of society.

Do you want to raise a little rebellious hellspawn? Is that your idea of contributing to civilization?
Just saying, because that's the drift I'm catching.
You don't agree with social morality, so you won't teach it. Next thing you know, you get a little 10 year old causing trouble because his parents raised him in a way that is conducive to creating a rebel of society.

A member of an organized criminal syndicate could adhere very closely to codes of behavior and certain values and morals, and yet this person is in complete opposition to society.

Serial killers usually very socially integrated: high education, social, family, kids, good job etc.

I don't think the cause and effect relationship you describe is correct.

 

[vi edit]

Yes but the point is, teaching your children to have a good work ethic with the ultimate goal of material comfort, is a basic value that most people believe is intrinsically good when it is not. It is taken for granted that these things are necessarily good, they are not necessarily bad, but they are not guaranteed to make one happy. If I don't teach this to my kids then according to society I am a bad parent. But is this really the case?

Where did I say anything about material comfort? Having a work ethic or being intelligent has nothing to do how many toys you amass. It's simply about having an edge on others and making *LIFE* easier. You don't need to have a high paying job or fancy house for those to be of use.

And since you are fishing for answers, yes I think you are a bad parent if you don't want to instill those traits in your children or want them to succeed in life. But that's just how I was raised. Take pride in your work, take pride in yourself, continue to learn and let the rest come to you.

 

[Jzero]

Yes but the point is, teaching your children to have a good work ethic with the ultimate goal of material comfort, is a basic value that most people believe is intrinsically good when it is not. It is taken for granted that these things are necessarily good, they are not necessarily bad, but they are not guaranteed to make one happy.

If I don't teach this to my kids then according to society I am a bad parent. But is this really the case?

There's a difference between teaching your kid to be a money-grubbing workaholic and teaching your kid that in order to survive you need food and shelter and in order to get those you're gonna have to work at least a little.

But if you don't teach them the latter, what would you teach them instead?

 

[hanoverphist]

Some things aren't inheriently "right or wrong" they just have consequences for their use/actions. A responsible parent will educate you on those consequences should you choose to partake. Those consequences include physical damage to your body, legal issues from the state/feds, and most importanly the parental smackdown you'll give them if they are being stupid little shits about things.

i am very strong on the consequences ideology. there are consequences for good and bad behavior, and i try to teach my kids that they have choices to make, they have to weigh the consequences against what they are willing to accept. so far it has been pretty good, my kids are awesome and have so far made good choices. i hope that will hold true when they get older as well, hehe.

regardless of you teaching your kids morality, society will take care of it for you eventually. even if it is by imprisoning them for life for doing something you should have taught them was wrong from the beginning.

 

[destrekor]

I think we are all saying basically the same thing but I think the following point should be considered:

"Be a good worker" or "be a good student" is a moral that is commonly taught to children. In some cultures these morals are extremely important, and failure in these areas labels one as a deviant or an outcast.

Contrast to other cultures where "hard work" is a good thing but by no means necessary to maintain social participation.

You don't have to teach children these values, nor would they be necessarily happier if you did. This kind of morality exists to fulfill some external obligation, and has no intrinsic value, which is why I don't believe in it.

The other kind of morality:



This is not taught by parents, it is given to you by nature it's called empathy, and if you don't have it something has gone terribly wrong. Either you were not wired right or some childhood abuse rendered you apathetic to others' pain.

If you live in modern society, a strong work ethic is not a moral concern, it is a necessity.
Those without it are destined to leech off the work of others for their entire life, or entire they finally accept they have to put effort into work to earn their place.

A work ethic is necessary in all parts of the global civilization. In the third-world? Necessary, it's involved with tribal life. Also, just about forced to the point of the choice to have a strong work ethic doesn't exist, you just do. In China? You either work hard, or you barely survive earning the absolute bare minimum. And then your children also will have to supply income just to keep all members of the family alive. Harder work ethic might allow your children to commit more time to studies and not be enslaved in the sweat shops.
Russia, Europe, America? You either work hard, earning a decent living (or better!) and cooperating within society, or you're leeching off the system. Which would you rather your children do?
It doesn't have to live up to some fairytale dream of cooperating pleasantly with everyone you encounter, casually conversing with neighbors and/or coworkers, getting the job done with a big smile, going to the same barber every time and bullshitting with them, and going to the local grocer and butchershop and being the regular customer that the workers know by name, know the wife, know your life story.
But it at least should be one in which the young adult, based on your influence, is able to get work done, do it successfully, and not be a pain in the ass to be around and difficult to cooperate with.

 

[zinfamous]

Of course! all you need to do is give them Jesus, b/c we all know that Jesus is the only path to morality!

/sarcasm

 

[MJinZ]

I don't think I can teach what I don't believe, and yet it seems that what counts as a good parent is one that teaches morality, values, codes of behavior etc.

It's not that I don't practice these "virtues", but I only do so to maintain a minimum level of participation in society.

To me it's like a religion, one that I have to participate in but don't believe in.

I was never taught morality. My parents did teach me to think and develop a high IQ, so that I could learn what I wanted and the rest on my own. Needless to say, my morality is far different than my parents.

 

[MJinZ]

The "Golden Rule" really doesn't have to be about religion, beliefs, or anything along those lines. It's a simple rule that keeps society civilized.

I don't want to be killed so don't kill others.
I don't want to called bad names so don't do it to others.
I don't want to have my stuff stolen so don't do it to others.

It's selfish at it's most basic roots but so effective if everyone applied it. Sure you have a couple fruit loops that actually like some weird crap but that's not really the norm for the rest of us.

Don't turn it into anything more than it needs to be.

Golden Rule works for rational and sane people only. Sociopaths revel in the golden rule - if they want to be raped/molested/abused etc themselves.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I was never taught morality. My parents did teach me to think and develop a high IQ, so that I could learn what I wanted and the rest on my own. Needless to say, my morality is far different than my parents.

Consider this though, at a very young age, your parents morality is taught to you through basic parenting. For example, two 3-year olds squabbling over the same toy. Parents will often interject to keep it fair and say such things as: "No, he/she was using it first", "No, you need to share with others", "Let him/her have a turn with it also"...So, while on a more mature level, morality can be debated...there's always the chance that some of your morals came from your parents unknowingly. BTW, I too have different beliefs and morals than my parents.

 

[tw1164]

A member of an organized criminal syndicate could adhere very closely to codes of behavior and certain values and morals, and yet this person is in complete opposition to society.

Serial killers usually very socially integrated: high education, social, family, kids, good job etc.

I don't think the cause and effect relationship you describe is correct.

I think serial killers are normally social outcasts, who kill animals early in life.

Unless you raise your children in a vacuum they're going to be taught morality (norms) from someone else, wouldn't you rather be the person doing it?

 

[waggy]

I think serial killers are normally social outcasts, who kill animals early in life.

Unless you raise your children in a vacuum they're going to be taught morality (norms) from someone else, wouldn't you rather be the person doing it?

that was my point early on. You can't teach a child morality. it may be not be the morals i teach my kids.

 

[MJinZ]

Consider this though, at a very young age, your parents morality is taught to you through basic parenting. For example, two 3-year olds squabbling over the same toy. Parents will often interject to keep it fair and say such things as: "No, he/she was using it first", "No, you need to share with others", "Let him/her have a turn with it also"...So, while on a more mature level, morality can be debated...there's always the chance that some of your morals came from your parents unknowingly. BTW, I too have different beliefs and morals than my parents.

Yes, basic morality is instilled passively.

More accurately, my parents never actively or purposefully taught me morality.

Like sending someone to Catholic School. Or sitting down and explaining something. Etc.

 

[ixelion]

teaching your kid that in order to survive you need food and shelter and in order to get those you're gonna have to work at least a little.

but surely this isn't why we work 40-80 hour weeks in very stressful jobs with debt and bills? I think that most people live far beyond what is necessary to survive, house, car computers etc. We teach kids these values, knowing for sure, that it will make them happy, but will it?

Having a work ethic or being intelligent has nothing to do how many toys you amass.

Absolutely, I am sure early man had to work his ass of to catch that prey, just to survive.

It's simply about having an edge on others and making *LIFE* easier. You don't need to have a high paying job or fancy house for those to be of use.

So a strong work ethic and education would provide you with an advantage over others? What kind of advantage? wealth? power? knowledge? are those things necessarily tied to happiness? Is it impossible to be happy without a good work ethic and an education? I don't know how important those things are to me.

But it at least should be one in which the young adult, based on your influence, is able to get work done, do it successfully, and not be a pain in the ass to be around and difficult to cooperate with.

You are right here, which is why I maintain a minimum level of participation, to avoid being a pain in the ass, and to promote cooperation.

But as I suggested earlier, most people do far more than just the minimum, and some people do way too much.

Some of the values taught to children (particularly in schools) eventually socialize children to be ambitious, obey authority, follow the group, be a leader etc...

I guess it varies widely from person to person, some people will do a lot to maintain their standing in society, while others are more concerned with inward emotions. I do not believe modern society (and the values it teaches) has struck a balance between the two. I want to teach my children to do just that.

Do what you have to do to make others happy, but, ultimately, it's your life to live. If your not happy, then tell the mf to suck a lemon (perhaps gently depending on how young they are )

 

[Mursilis]

How old are you?