Give me the boy until the age of seven, I will give you the man

Zillah

As I (reluctantly) grow up I start pondering the bigger questions in life (or am I starting to ponder the practical questions and leave the bigger questions aside...). This is a question for those of you with kids (or any of you oh so opinionated A&A posters).

It is fair to say that the majority of Atheists and Agnostics do not believe in objective morality. This we have discussed at great length. Instead we believe morality is a natural evolutionary trait derived from empathy, social awareness and cultural conditioning. I fully believe any given human adult has the ability to understand this and integrate it into their lives. Many don't, of course, especially the religious who maintain that God has built morality into the universe in the same fashion that he did the universal variables.

The crux of my rambling is this: When your child steals a toy from another child, do you tell them it is "wrong"? If they ask why Hitler killed all those people, was that "wrong"? Was he evil? Or is it enough to teach them that it will make the other child feel bad and that they'll get in trouble?

On one hand I would feel dirty and dishonest by simply presenting that to my offspring in the same way I might tell them that the moon orbits the earth. On the other hand, I'm well aware how difficult and abstract a concept it is for a child to grasp.

I don't want to start them off thinking in such an intolerant and close minded fashion. I don't want my children to chop the world up into tidy packages of right and wrong, of good and evil, and have them believe such things are true in the sense that the statement "The sky is blue" is true. But I'd also be afraid of not truly conveying my meaning to such a young mind, and leave them to develop little or no morality. Children naturally think in terms of authority, they do what they're told, they believe what they're told. If I fail to inculcate them with my beliefs at a young age is it possible that they'll never form strong opinions on what sort of behavior is acceptable and what is not?

Does one need the illusion of objectivity during formative years? Perhaps when they're older you can successfully introduce the non-objective clause?

This turned into a far more rambling post that I had intended but I think you get the idea.

(Also, if you want to start a debate about whether morality is objective or not feel free to start your own thread, this is about raising kids)

MrStuffins

When i was younger, phrases like "Evil", God is watching" "I'll tell the Parish Priest" etc used to scare the b'jesus out of me.

Some of the time i would decide about what was right and wrong by thinking "Would God be angry?". When i think back, i think maybe if i knew i could do Naughty things with no consequences, i'd have done them as a child, (i use Naughty because Bad seems like a bit of a stretch for the kinds of things i'm talking about)

As an athiest, i worry about my (unborn) kids, as i won't bring them up under any religion. Will they think to themselves "**** It" everytime they wanna do something naughty just because there's no supernatural being watching and judging?

I hope not. I guess it'll be my job to ensure that doesnt happen. But..........

Black Swan

Zillah wrote: »

Give me the boy until the age of seven, I will give you the man

This is a very simplistic Freudian notion of childhood development, which ignores how much people change over their lifetimes? Alternatives can be found in Erik Erikson's stages of development, or Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs (i.e., striving for self-actualization), both theories showing how the child, adolescent, young adult, middle age adult, and older adult go though major changes during their lifetimes, not simply predicated upon the first 7 years.

This also flies in the face of Newman's idea of a university, where minds can be dramatically changed through study and exposure to, and interaction with, diverse ideas and methods?

Furthermore, this theory places more emphasis on the nurture side of the nature-nurture argument, which can be problematic in other ways?

This formed by "age seven" argument is also challenged by non-Western philosophical orientations; e.g., Zen and the striving for perfection over a lifetime, or Bushido and the way of the warrior, expressed as a continuity of mastery over a lifetime (or many lifetimes if you believe in such things)?

Zillah

Er, it's just a reference to child rearing...

eoin5

Zillah wrote: »

Does one need the illusion of objectivity during formative years?

For practical reasons yes because their school teacher is going to do it that way anyway. You dont want the child to be too confused about these things.

In theory I think not.

Naz_st

Zillah wrote: »

The crux of my rambling is this: When your child steals a toy from another child, do you tell them it is "wrong"?

Do you think it was wrong? If so, then that's the only level of objectivity that your child needs or will understand at that age IMHO.

Goduznt Xzst

Well I plan to raise my child with a morality that best fits the society I will raise him/her in. As I plan to raise a child in a Western Democratic Society I will raise my child to abide by the laws and customs of that culture.

That being said, I will also raise them to question why it is these customs exist, and also to question aspects of that society which I feel could do with change.

But as I don't have a child yet, who knows what will happen. I can't tell you the amount of pre-parents I've talked to, with all the literature and guidebooks, who've said "I'll never take my child to McDonalds, ever!" only to find them a few years later sitting in McDonalds feeding twisty fries and cheeseburgers into their child and who say "well it's not that bad now is it, plus we where tired and needed a break"

thebouldwhacker

Watch the film '200'... cant go wrong with that!;)

Goduznt Xzst

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Watch the film '200'... cant go wrong with that!;)

I think you're missing a few Spartans there unless thats a very odd way of referring to bicentennial man

Benhonan

I think you could probably do with leaving the postmodernism until they're a teenager and just tell them that pulling girls' hair is bold.

Latchy

Zillah wrote: »

Er, it's just a reference to child rearing...

Used by the Christian brothers as their mantra ...

2Scoops

Latchy wrote: »

Used by the Christian brothers as their mantra ...

It was the Jesuits, I believe.

Latchy

2Scoops wrote: »

It was the Jesuits, I believe.

CBS stole it so .

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

On one hand I would feel dirty and dishonest by simply presenting that to my offspring in the same way I might tell them that the moon orbits the earth. On the other hand, I'm well aware how difficult and abstract a concept it is for a child to grasp.

I don't think it is necessary to explain to your child the finer points about subjective morality.

Children are designed to take morality lessons from their parents, at that age there is little different to them between something be wrong because my parents said so and universally wrong.

Zillah wrote: »

I don't want to start them off thinking in such an intolerant and close minded fashion. I don't want my children to chop the world up into tidy packages of right and wrong, of good and evil, and have them believe such things are true in the sense that the statement "The sky is blue" is true.

I think that is something you can teach them later in life, and an early age they need the structure of parental disciple without ambiguity.