Quote:
|
Pangloss seems to be claiming you don't need to teach them morals, just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.
|
I would say teach them to think about their decisions and the consequences that follow. "Morality" is so subjective, and varies from culture to culture. Even the Ten Commandments are fallible in terms of civil law. I suppose with the 2-year old you may think it's better to start out simple and say things like:
Do not lie.
Do not steal.
Do not cheat.
Do not kill.
But in the end, I think it would be better to show them why not to do these things, rather than just have these definitive dos and don'ts.
If there were moral absolutes, you would think there would be some sort of mechanism that would punish or censure ALL those who commit immoral acts. But this is not the case. There is not much of a reason NOT to do something simply because you are told that it's "wrong." For the parent, this means that
they need to think about punishment for what they deem to be their childrens' immoral behavior. In other words, it isn't enough to say "That was bad, Billy. Don't do it again." Therefore you take a strap to their rear end; cause some pain. They then learn that the consequence for that action is pain, always a good reason not to do something. The time-out thing has run its course. Corporal punishment is the consequence for what you would call an immoral act, and even in the mind of a 2-year old, knowing not to do something for fear of the punishment is a pretty rational thought process. I think they've shown this cognitive process using rats