From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Crime and punishment (was Re: 20/20 to crucify FFL holders)
Keywords: FFL, criminals getting FFLs, HCI agenda
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:31:19 GMT

jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:

>ice@socrates.umd.edu (Fredrik Nyman) writes:

>>Is this necessary?  A *lot* of moral "codes", while present in
>>many (most?) religions aren't inherently religious, but rather plain,
>>old, and increasingly rare good sense.

>>When you teach someone not to kill, for example, you don't also have
>>to say "because God says so"; there are *quite* a few other reasons.

>I think it is necessary.  If you try to teach a kid not to kill
>or not to steal or not to lie or to treat others as you would be
>treated and when the kid asks "why" and you cannot give a reason, 
>the kid is likely to ignore the advice.  If on the other hand, 
>you teach the kid that these things are to be done because a 
>supreme being has instructed it so and that you may burn in
>hell if you don't obey, the kid has a reason to obey.  At least
>it worked for me :-)  The kid, as s/he becomes an adult may
>choose to change his worldview from what was taught him, but odds are
>his basic moral underpinning that was originally hammered into
>him will stick with him.

Ok.  Here's an example from my viewpoint (though I don't have any
kids).

Kid: "Why can't I kill people, Dad?"

Dad: "Because it's not nice.  People have a right to live.  If someone
      were to kill you, you wouldn't be able to play games, or watch
      TV, or be with Mommy and Daddy anymore.  You'd never get a chance
      to grow up and have a family and career of your own.  You wouldn't
      want someone to kill you, now would you?"

Kid: "No, Daddy!"

See?  Simple.  Fill in your own reasons here.  You might have a caveat
about self-defense or something, but that's a complicated issue for a
small child who's at the "Why is the sky blue?" stage. 

Note that the lesson is taught by a parent, and not a school.  Let the
schools take care of the "book learning" and let the family take care
of the moral lessons.  The state shouldn't be teaching morals.

In fact, if the parent so wishes, they can say, "Because God said so."
In my opinion that's as bad as saying, "Because _I_ said so," but
everyone is entitled to their own opinion here.  Telling a kid that
they'll "burn in Hell" is bordering on mental abuse in my opinion.
That's as bad as saying, "Because I'll beat the crap out of you."  The
threat of physical violence as a reason not to do something is a Bad
Thing [TM], whether or not it's inflicted by <insert your favorite
diety here>.

>>I wonder, though, if our schools are up to the task of teaching basic
>>human values like compassion and love for your fellow man.  After all,
>>our schools (and what they teach) tend to mirror our society in
>>general, and society's public figures, who so often are role models,
>>rarely exhibit these human values.

>Worse, are the teachers up to it?  After a couple of generations of 
>multicultural, anything-goes, secular mind-mush, do we have the 
>teachers with the moral underpinnings to do the job?  

There's always going to be someone who disagrees with the moral lesson
that someone else would be teaching in a school.  That's all the more
reason _not_ to teach morals in a school.  _MY_ children wouldn't
attend such a school, even if I approved of the moral lessons.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure