Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
From: tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: corporal punishment in schools -Reasoning with children
Message-ID: <1220@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 18:25:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1220
Posted: Tue Sep 10 18:25:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 07:36:44 EDT
References: <1075@sphinx.UUCP> <7800422@inmet.UUCP> <1583@peora.UUCP> <1205@ihlpg.UUCP> <1612@peora.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 49

> >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