What? I dont see how this applies to anything I have said?



Yes you have ( the above is the sort of answer I was expecting to my question "why is stealing wrong", although I agree that no one has actually said its wrong, although you seem to be implying it.)

So
Why is being unpopular an undesirable outcome?
Why is breaking down the bonds of society an undesirable outcome?
Why is a custodial sentence an undesirable outcome?
Why is making people feel xxxx an undesirable outcome?

I put it to you that you hold beliefs that all of the above are undesirable outcomes ( or some other belief further "down" which gives you the logical deduction that the above are undesirable outcomes)

Just because you arent starting your sentences to your children with "I believe that ...." does not mean that you arent dealing in beliefs.

You have a pretty low opinion of our species.

Regardless you asked me whether I thought everyone had an opinion you didn't ask me whether I thought they had a well considered opinion.

I don't know that I would consider them metaphysical

Which is obviously perfectly reasonable. All I am saying is that if you decided to teach your kids there was no gods I wouldn't consider that immoral.

I disagree, what you are effectively saying is that there are good moral racists and homophobes. I don't accept this.

You are in danger of saying it is not right to teach kids any values upon which people disagree because those values are thus subjective. This is a nonsense.

I believe in certain objective moral standards and that includes an opposition to racism and homophobia. If you want to make a case that there is some moral case to be made for the reverse then feel free. Unless someone wants to contend that I am happy to accept these as true. Having accepted these as true I would teach them as true, in the same way I would teach evolution in whatever limited way I could.

No you couldn't. This is an absolute misrepresentation of my argument. My argument contends that the teaching of racism is immoral whether it is taught through religion or not.

So I think in the interests of fairness you've found yourself in a position where you are finding it difficult to justify taking a moral position. Yet here you are saying that you are.

You're also saying that you can allow kids to learn stuff at their own pace and that has to be right, I completely agree I am not suggesting some proscriptive approach I am merely stating that taking morally good positions and teaching your kids those values, whenever it's appropriate, are true is also perfectly fine

In some respects, yes I do. I don't hold much hope for our long term prospects given our tendencies, but that's another discussion.

But this started when I suggested that some children will never be able to make a decision about religion, naturally I was referring to the ones who aren't capable of making a considered analysis.

What made you choose the team you support?

Ok, your opinion is noted.

Really? I have to prove to you that there are billions of people on this planet who believe themselves good moral people but are still racist or homophobic? C'mon dude.

Nonsense is a little strong. Morals are subjective, values are subjective, the children will form their own values and opinions if given the information necessary. Or I could withhold what I don't want them to believe whilst telling them what I do want them to believe, I can create conflicts between myself and other authority figures in their lives, I can confuse them or cause hurt when they decide later in life having learned enough to make a decision that they don't agree with the value they've held for years thanks to me. I can urge my view of life on them so they're just like me?

I don't need to make a case, there are plenty of people out there to do it for me.

See above.

Do you subscribe to the argument that morals are simply a byproduct of our move to communal living? In other words, they exist purely to grease the wheels of a cohesive society, they're probably not handed down from a deity, they're just common sense.

That being the case, there's a big difference to me between explaining and enforcing those rules with my children and telling them what to believe on subjects like religion where nobody actually knows the truth despite what they may believe.

I was attempting to show how not everything is tied up in a belief. 'Red' is just a noun, a tool for communication, 'red is best' is a belief.

Theft is a subject commonly associated with morality, yes? I'm simply saying that to teach a child not to steal might be done for other reasons than just trying to instill in them good morals. I might not be urging my own moral code on them by teaching them that, just helping them get along in a society and not be outcast for breaking the rules.

I DO start sentences with 'I believe that...', all the time. What I don't do is tell them what to believe.

No, the former is a belief as well. "The sun is hot" is a belief; "2+2=4" is a belief; "Red" is a belief.

Pretty sure "red" is not a belief as it has no possible truth-value.

Sure, "red" as the subjective experience is not a belief. I am referring to his beliefs about the noun "red".

Because you believe that it is good to get along in society and not be outcast. And you want them to believe that, too. There's really no way to separate ethical instruction from the inculcation of beliefs.

Well "red is a noun" is a belief, but sentences/words that aren't propositions can't be beliefs imo

I'm not sure I agree, but considering this is tangential to the discussion at hand and I'd rather not get into a Uke/Aaron-esque debate, we can let this drop, I think.

Maybe not but I'm not providing 'ethical instruction', you've had to reintroduce some kind of moral or ethical structure to make your point and I'm trying to show you that they don't have to be the motivation.

I don't teach my kids not to steal because I think it's wrong, I teach them not to do it so that from an early age they don't inadvertently ostracise themselves. If they choose to steal as adults or take on a set of values that makes theft a desirable activity and are prepared to accept the well understood risks, well, that's their choice.

Not sure if we can since it all hinges around what we consider a 'belief' and at what point you cross the line between educating a child and basically turning them into a clone of your mind set, or if there's even a line.

Maybe not but I'm not providing 'ethical instruction', you've had to reintroduce some kind of moral or ethical structure to make your point and I'm trying to show you that they don't have to be the motivation.

I don't teach my kids not to steal because I think it's wrong, I teach them not to do it so that from an early age they don't inadvertently ostracise themselves. If they choose to steal as adults or take on a set of values that makes theft a desirable activity and are prepared to accept the well understood risks, well, that's their choice.

Not sure if we can since it all hinges around what we consider a 'belief' and at what point you cross the line between educating a child and basically turning them into a clone of your mind set, or if there's even a line.

Is it ok to teach a child anything you like and the only objection that can be raised be on the nature of what those beliefs are? Then the whole thing becomes a subjective nightmare with the children the only ones that really suffer whilst parents and carers fill their heads with whatever they happen to believe.

I haven't 'reintroduced' anything. I'm pointing out that what you're saying here:
is equivalent to saying "I might not be doing X, just doing X."

I mean, you do believe it is good for your children to get along in society and not be outcast, right? You're not agnostic regarding that proposition. You hold a belief about it.

No I don't think it is. Teaching children not to steal because you're trying to instill what you consider to be good morals, and teaching them not to steal because it might piss other people off are two different things and the latter has no moral or ethical basis, it's just practical. You could even call it lazy. You just keep trying to show how it's moral or ethical and you're not understanding that that's not my motivation in this particular example. Plus there's the issue of how morals simply evolved from our move to communal living and are common sense behaviours that allow for cohesive soceity, not some spiritual rule book that we have to follow to be good people.

I suppose that giving the impression to my kids that 'getting along in society' might be preferable to the alternative could be considered a belief on my part but I don't equate it to giving them their opinions on the existence of deities.

Being a psychologist, I'll obviously take you seriously. But I still say that you're rather grossly misrepresenting my position.

Such as statements like this. To the extent that learning a skill modifies behavior, I'll agree. But there is a difference between overall behavior modification and teaching a skill.

I can turn it around and say that you're entire approach is based on bypassing a child's involvement in the "how to" of handling conflicts. I honestly don't know where you're getting the ridiculous notion that if a parent helps their kid in learning how to handle rude people that this somehow conveys a message that the parent is afraid of conflict!

Again, you are ignoring that there are different degrees of bullying. The question in the OP was basically how to cope with rather obnoxious and rude comments made by another child. This probably isn't the first and certainly won't be the last this girl is the victim of insensitive comments, or gets picked on by someone obnoxious. And later in life, there won't always be an authority to run to.

I'm showing that the fact that your motivation is not to instill beliefs about stealing does not mean your intent is not to instill beliefs full stop, which you for some reason insist is the case.

What issue is that? What difference does the origin of moral beliefs make to their status as beliefs?

Neither do I. But it's a distinction of value, not of type. It is still the inculcation of belief in one's children.

You (and tame_deuces) are ignoring the fact that there are different degrees of bullying. There is knocking books out of your hands at the bus stop, swiping your hat and playing "keep away" at recess, and then there is making rude or obnoxious comments such as was made to OP's daughter.

You're certainly welcome to go to the human resource department and complain every time someone makes a rude/obnoxious comment to you or otherwise treats you disrespectfully in the workplace. Good luck with that.

Your not getting it. You are passing on to them your beliefs about theft, society, and morality, by teaching them not to steal. Your beliefs about getting along in society, about being an outcast, about breaking rules, are informing what, and how, you teach your children. And what you are teaching them is also beliefs.

I asked you this before, but you maybe didnt see it. If, after you have explained to your children, they disagree with you, and plainly state, "I dont believe that", or "I dont think thats true", do you just go "oh well, thats fine, everyone has different beliefs, you go ahead and do whatever". Im pretty sure you dont. Not just talking about stealing here, but things like doing homework, tidying rooms, etc.

I think there's a difference between 'survival skills' and beliefs. If I'm a farmer and I know that I should save some grain to plant in the spring or my family won't eat next year, is that a belief or is it just practical survival skills? If the farmer teaches his children that they should also save some grain, is he passing on a belief? I think he's just saying 'if you want to be a farmer and feed yourself, you have to save grain'. He's not saying 'you WILL be a farmer because no other choice is valid and you WILL save grain'.

The belief that survival is preferable to extinction underlies everything here.

If you want to distinguish between different beliefs, and say that some are appropriate to instil in children and others not, go ahead - I agree. But it seems to me you're just backing yourself further and further into a corner by asserting that all beliefs should not be taught, and hence whatever you teach your children needs must not be a belief, even when it pretty clearly is.

The point was you stated there may kids never able to make a decision so as to not arm them with your beliefs they are going to form an opinion / make a decision anyway

I was surrounded by Liverpool fans, I was brought up in it. This is not equivalent to being brought up in a church. It does not qualify as metaphysical by the same standard.

No, you have to prove to me they are good moral people, if they hold immoral beliefs I contend they aren't.

I don't agree, I believe we can objectively hold certain values as good. You can teach good morals with the same skills as good science. Providing the kids with the tools whenever possible to understand why these moral positions is good seems fine.

Consider what it is you are saying here. You are saying that there are plenty of people who would, on your behalf, make a case that homophobia and racism are good moral values. Do you really want people who would make that argument make that argument on your behalf. I don't think you actually would but it's what you are saying.

The see above makes no sense I was addressing a misrepresentation of mya argument.

I don't believe that morals are either handed down by a deity and I don't agree that they should be just common sense. I believe that our morals should be directed to enabling us to be the best that we can be. I don't care, as stated previously, whether those morals are presented in a theistic manner or not it is the moral or value that is important.

I have never advocated you telling your kids what to believe on things such as religion, I've only contended that it wouldn't be immoral if you chose to do so

Consider moving. Or tell your daughter to lie.

In a small, rural town, community is very important. And if everyoune around you is a christian, then of course they're gonna look down on atheists.

Kids are just more vocal about their perceptions, but I can pretty much guarantee that that's what their parents think and say at home, too, just that they don't say it to your face.

Still good?

This one is going in circles. I said 'let them make their own minds up, although may never have the wherewithal to do that'. (paraphrasing). You didn't agree that there are people who aren't able to make their own minds up.

What standard is that?

Ok, so if I'm gay and visit bars in the US Bible belt, or be openly gay in all the Islamic countries, places full of good moral religious types (because being religious automatically lends credibility to your morality right?), I'll be accepted with open arms?

What you do and don't consider to be 'good morals' is not relevant to my view point, only how you then deal with introducing your children to them. I do see how from your viewpoint, it matters what those morals actually are and that's how you judge the appropriateness of passing them on, right?

Yes I do because they'd be able to argue it where I'd only be disgusted even pretending to feel that way. It doesn't change the fact that they consider themselves moral and you immoral because you're tolerant of homosexuals.

How many upstanding, moral, good, christian Daily Mail readers are homophobic?

Then from where do morals originate?

What I said was that they would make some decision as to an opinion regardless of whether that opinion was that they didn't know. They'd have an opinion if for no other reason than the very pervasiveness you called.


I'd consider it standard lexicography unless you want to consider every subjective decision metaphysical.

I've never said being religious lends credibility to a persons morality, have you been paying attention?

This was my point when we started this. Your position allows for the teaching of bad morals as long as there is no metaphysical approach engaged. Even where the approach says there isn't a metaphysical influence to the decision. I consider the morals more important than the method.

My point is that they would not be able to make there case because their position is inherently immoral. I don't care for their values only my own. They will not sucessfully make the case that homophobia or racism is moral because it isn't.

None, if they are homophobic they are not moral.

Where they originate is less important than constantly reviewing them with the ultimate goal of us, all of us, being the best that we can be. We can be better than racist, we can be better than homophobic so I do not see those positions as moral positions.