tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/09/85)
>[Joel Upchurch] > I also think that it is foolish to try and reason with a small > child. They are not miniature adults and to try and treat > them as such is a big mistake. You might as well try to > reason with a puppy to housebreak it. With a older child it > may be useful to explain why they should or shouldn't do > something, but only after they have developed the intelligence > and acquired the experience to understand the explanation. -------- I disagree. Children old enough to understand speech are old enough to reason at some level. Children old enough to ask the reason for some rule deserve an honest answer at their level. "Do this because I say so" is not good enough. Do not underestimate your child. A child who percieves that good behavior consists in following a set of seemingly arbitrary rules with no underlying justification will have difficulty in developing an internal moral code. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (09/10/85)
>I disagree. Children old enough to understand speech are old enough >to reason at some level. Children old enough to ask the reason for >some rule deserve an honest answer at their level. "Do this because I >say so" is not good enough. Do not underestimate your child. A child >who percieves that good behavior consists in following a set of >seemingly arbitrary rules with no underlying justification will have >difficulty in developing an internal moral code. >-- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I hate to tell you this, but learning to obey arbitrary rules is good practice for real life. A don't see anyone as needing a 'moral code' per se. All you need is a set of well learned behavior patterns, that allow you to move through society with a minimum of friction. And some of those patterns are quite arbitrary. I have my own ethics, but I would despair to explain those to an adult, much less a child. The only way you can teach a child your ethics is by example. I don't recall my father ever explaining his ethics to me, but in most ways I seem to live by the same standards as him. Even for those rules that appear to have some rational basis, such as those intended to insure the child's health and safety, how can those be explained in any meaningful terms to a child who has no referents for the concepts of disease, injury, or death? Without such referents any explanation is gibberish or worse. Joel Upchurch
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/11/85)
> >I disagree. Children old enough to understand speech are old enough > >to reason at some level. Children old enough to ask the reason for > >some rule deserve an honest answer at their level. "Do this because I > >say so" is not good enough. Do not underestimate your child. A child > >who percieves that good behavior consists in following a set of > >seemingly arbitrary rules with no underlying justification will have > >difficulty in developing an internal moral code. > >-- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan ----------------------------------- > = Joel Upchurch > I hate to tell you this, but learning to obey arbitrary rules > is good practice for real life. A don't see anyone as needing > a 'moral code' per se. All you need is a set of well learned > behavior patterns, that allow you to move through society with > a minimum of friction. And some of those patterns are quite > arbitrary. They may be arbitrary, but there is a reason for most of them. Understanding the reason behind a law or regulation usually makes me, as an adult, more willing to follow it without complaint. In those cases where I find the reason or the rule itself to be objectionable, I find a motivation to attempt to change it. A set of well learned behavior patterns followed without question sounds more appropriate for a dog than a human being. > I have my own ethics, but I would despair to explain those to > an adult, much less a child. The only way you can teach a > child your ethics is by example. I don't recall my father > ever explaining his ethics to me, but in most ways I seem to > live by the same standards as him. You are absolutely correct when you state that the only way to teach a child your ethics is by example. You certainly should not give your child unsolicited ethics lectures. But when your child ASKS the reason for a rule, you can, and should, give him an explanation at his level. > Even for those rules that appear to have some rational basis, > such as those intended to insure the child's health and > safety, how can those be explained in any meaningful terms to > a child who has no referents for the concepts of disease, > injury, or death? Without such referents any explanation is > gibberish or worse. Children have the concept of injury at a very young age. If your young child asks you why he can't drink the furniture polish, you don't have to give him a chemistry lecture. A simple "You'll get sick" may be enough. It's a lot better than "Because I say so." -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan