See if you can answer the impossible question

[GoingUp]

How is it different for someone to give candy to children to get them to change their religious beliefs vs. giving candy to children to get them to behave in class or when they solve a math problem?

My Professor and I talked about this for an hour today and we both think that its morally different, but we can't express in words why it is....

And if you dont think its morally different, explain why.....

Link

Edit: for now I think ive found my answer, and its currently all typed up in my essay that I posted here if you want to read it...

My Essay

 

[sygyzy]

Where have you seen a case of someone giving a kid candy to change their religious beliefs? Was there an article about this or something?

 

[Nohr]

That's pretty pathetic, can't say I've ever heard of that happening.

 

[theNEOone]

um, let's try not to misrepresent facts here. i believe from your previous post that candy was offered as a reward for students to attend/perform well in the relgious class. it wasn't given as a reward for changing their beliefs.


=|

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Where have you seen a case of someone giving a kid candy to change their religious beliefs? Was there an article about this or something?

Are troops are giving candy to Iraqi children to convert them from Islam...

What, you didn't get the memo?

 

There we go again with suppression of evidence and straw man.

Why don't you just post the whole article so people can interpret it for themselves? You will never find a satisfactory answer for as long as you're looking for what does not exist. You try to pass this candy thing as an abstract fact, rather than your interpretation of a story told in an article. When you read an article with your mind already made up, you will most likely find what you want--even if it is not what was said. It's kind of like sometimes we see a word but our minds are thinking of something else, so the word reads as what we were thinking. It's happened occasionally at AT forums (e.g., Linux's recent thread about getting "it" up).

Solution for now: Post the entire article so anyone interested can read it if you're sincerely interested in understanding it. Let's see if people still have the same perception as you.

 

[Ynog]

I think the problem is that kids of impressionable.

And there is a difference between beliefs and rewards.

Giving a child candy for behaving well, or solving a math problem is a reward.
Giving a child candy for believing in something else is not a reward. Not sure exactly what I would call it, maybe
bribery. Beliefs aren't necessarily facts. They are abstract ideas. So the teacher would be inserting their ideas,
and beliefs to children that aren't theirs.
What would it be like if your children (or if you had them), came home from school and told you things that are directly
against what you belief in. I would think when it comes to things of this nature its the responsibility of the parents to
direct the children. And giving candy is a bad idea anyway. No one should be given candy to belief in anything.
I can give candy to children and get them to believe we never landed on the moon. That dinosaurs never existed and that
the holocast is a myth. That is different than giving a child a candy bar for doing his homework correctly.


However a major issue I would have with it is this. While people will urge to the end of time on religion (beliefs in general could
be any belief). Honestly children are not mature enough to be able to form their own beliefs and completely understanding what is going
on. So who should be in charge with this. Well the people that raise them, parents, guardians, whoever is the primary care giver.

Als

 

[amcdonald]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: sygyzy
Where have you seen a case of someone giving a kid candy to change their religious beliefs? Was there an article about this or something?

Are troops are giving candy to Iraqi children to convert them from Islam...

What, you didn't get the memo?

I don't know... our they?

 

[dullard]

I can think about your hypothetical question without an article. Something doesn't need to be an actual occurance for me to think about the possibility of the occurance and outcomes that would likely result. Here are my thoughts.

Thoughts about society:
1) Society benefits when a child does well in school. That child learns more and statistically will probably be more productive throughout his/her life. Even if the child is a goner (ie will never become productive for one reason or another), society still benefits when the child behaves well in class - then the other children will likely learn more and statistaclly will probably be more productive throughout their lives.
2) The more a child is encouraged to behave in class and to learn in class, the greater the effect in #1.
3) Society benefits little if at all by encouraging a child to change religion.
4) Even if you feel society benefits by a child changing religion, repeatedly encouraging a child to change religion over and over won't benefit society over and over. It would be just a one time benefit.

Thoughts about personal rights (at least percieved rights):
1) Parents feel it is the child's right to learn. Thus it is a school's responsibility to make sure the children learn as much as possible. Giving incentives to encourage learning fullfils that child's rights (as well as the children around him/her who are not disturbed by said child).
2) Parents feel it is the parent's right to give their religion to their child. Most parents would cringe, protest, or worse if a school attempts to do what the parents percieve as their right.

Thoughts about magnitude:
1) Giving a child candy to behave is a small thing in the child's life. Thus if you consider it bad, it is just a "small bad".
2) Changing a child's religion is a major thing in that child's life. Thus if you consider it bad, it is a "very important major bad".

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: luvly
There we go again with suppression of evidence and straw man.

Why don't you just post the whole article so people can interpret it for themselves? You will never find a satisfactory answer for as long as you're looking for what does not exist. You try to pass this candy thing as an abstract fact, rather than your interpretation of a story told in an article. When you read an article with your mind already made up, you will most likely find what you want--even if it is not what was said. It's kind of like sometimes we see a word but our minds are thinking of something else, so the word reads as what we were thinking. It's happened occasionally at AT forums (e.g., Linux's recent thread about getting "it" up).

Solution for now: Post the entire article so anyone interested can read it if you're sincerely interested in understanding it. Let's see if people still have the same perception as you.

Well actually I found this in a different article, and it pretty much sums up what Ive been trying to say all along.... anyways, link posted above.

"Religious beliefs are very personal matters. They depend on a person's inner convictions. They are important because they shape character and influence behaviour."

 

There's no point in rehashing what I said earlier. I can tell this much: you could transform into a utilitarian in a moment concerning morality, and I could argue against or in support of what the organisation is doing. You can turn me into a relativist; I could argue against or in support of the organisation depending upon what moral code that society adheres to. However, if you turn me into a moral realist, I have trouble arguing against it.

I'll tell you this: Your professor may tell you "oh, it's good" and all of that stuff; however, when the moment for grading comes, you'll know the truth. For philosophy classes such as the one you're taking, TAs usually do the grading because too many students take the courses.

But even if your professor is grading it himself, you are missing the work of your competitors. The paper next to him may remind him of what it is supposed to sound like, or he may commit himself to more criticism.

P.S.: Thanks for the link. Hopefully others will read it and decide.

 

[Wag]

42

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: luvly
There's no point in rehashing what I said earlier. I can tell this much: you could transform into a utilitarian in a moment concerning morality, and I could argue against or in support of what the organisation is doing. You can turn me into a relativist; I could argue against or in support of the organisation depending upon what moral code that society adheres to. However, if you turn me into a moral realist, I have trouble arguing against it.

I'll tell you this: Your professor may tell you "oh, it's good" and all of that stuff; however, when the moment for grading comes, you'll know the truth. For philosophy classes such as the one you're taking, TAs usually do the grading because too many students take the courses.

But even if your professor is grading it himself, you are missing the work of your competitors. The paper next to him may remind him of what it is supposed to sound like, or he may commit himself to more criticism.

P.S.: Thanks for the link. Hopefully others will read it and decide.

Huh?

 

[Wuffsunie]

Not going to respond to the question (too complex, not enough time to properly argue) but I will comment on the article.

That I found totally reprehensible. I have these people going around my campus doing things like that and quite dislike it. Of course there's a difference between a university student who is (should be) intelligent enough to be able to tell these ppl to take a hike if they don't like what they're hearing vs kids who have little to no say in what they hear and lack the maturity to know what's being said. Plus the fact that it's taking an evangelical approach to this pretty much removes any thinking required on the part of the kids.

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

aww i thought there was gonna be a real hard question to answer!!

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: luvly
There's no point in rehashing what I said earlier. I can tell this much: you could transform into a utilitarian in a moment concerning morality, and I could argue against or in support of what the organisation is doing. You can turn me into a relativist; I could argue against or in support of the organisation depending upon what moral code that society adheres to. However, if you turn me into a moral realist, I have trouble arguing against it.

I'll tell you this: Your professor may tell you "oh, it's good" and all of that stuff; however, when the moment for grading comes, you'll know the truth. For philosophy classes such as the one you're taking, TAs usually do the grading because too many students take the courses.

But even if your professor is grading it himself, you are missing the work of your competitors. The paper next to him may remind him of what it is supposed to sound like, or he may commit himself to more criticism.

P.S.: Thanks for the link. Hopefully others will read it and decide.

What? Anyways, the professor is grading it himself, and the final paper was on a topic of our choosing. Im the only one with this topic.

I just think you like to argue

 

[Goosemaster]

Religion will many times result in an endless argument. One party will argue that what they feel, its inconprehensability, is ireefutable because there is not matter to refute. The other party will argue the capabilities of the mind and the stress of excisting with consciousness.


For me, I find that if there is a God, I cannot understand it, for all human interpretaions have led to confusion.
At the present I am indifferent to God's existance only because I would have to spend my entire life attempting to understand something that is possibly incomprehensible for my current brain capacity.

I learned as a young child that for humanity to survive, acts of intentional kindless and assistance are required. I also learned to attempt to educate others in helping others for the general benefit of humanity.

If there is a God, I believe that he doesn't care whether you:

-Drink ALcohol
-Dance
-Watch Porn
-Have sex before marriage
-Are gay
-are bi
-are a murderer
-a rapist
etc...


I honestly believe that a god would find these important in defining the individual, but not in defining their mind.
It seems more reasonable that God would pay more attention to your end-result and your journey there.
Obviously a rapaist would have to achieve great strides in reversing his ills to society, but if he were to end up as a true benefit to society in the end, it would be worth more than a law-biding citizen that never did anything at all.

Life is interaction. God wants you to give it ago. People who benefit society and the world without especting a penace, in other words, they further themself just because it exists to be done, will get a Golden sticker @ the end. Obviously the sticker is sarcasm, but I stand by the rest.



The above statement is not wrong or RIGHT. It is whatI have found will give me the drive to explore the world and learn the knowledge that we, as humans, have worked so hard to achieve