Teaching respect for the law

[Figleaf]

One frequently cited parental purpose in the upbringing of children is to 'teach them respect for the law' or 'help them understand their obligations in society' or some other such formulation.

But where does this leave a parent, child, and society when the parent comes to see a fundamental flaw in the law or in the social order?

For example, on another thread recently, a poster/parent objected to same-sex marriage on the grounds it interfered with his childrens' 'moral' upbringing. I surmise that communist and libertarian parents may experience similar conflicts of principle, so I'm curious what people think of such situations. Please discuss the perspectives of the children and society as well as the parent's.

[Posit]

Forget about trying to teach children about respect for the law. It is unjust and hypocritical in its application. Rather teach them to have respect for other human beings under all circumstances. When you model tolerance and acceptance, the law will be unnecessary in all but the extreme cases.

[Charles Anthony]

I would imagine that the answer to the Opening Post would be similar to asking a religious parent how to raise children in a secular society or a slave in a cotton field.

Rather teach them to have respect for other human beings under all circumstances. When you model tolerance and acceptance, the law will be unnecessary in all but the extreme cases.

I want to agree with that but I still think a parent should do more. A responsible parent teaches an understanding of context and diplomacy.

A parent that "comes to see a fundamental flaw in the law or in the social order" should teach a precautionary fear of the law and an understanding of power. Thus, whether that child wants to be a rebellious hero or a status quo drone, that child will be equipped to understand what to expect.

Examples:

A rebellious hero will likely go nowhere by taking the risk of opposing a police officer when stopped for a traffic violation. Whereas being a status quo drone and acquiescing to power may lead to a peaceful and cheaper resolution.

A rebellious hero will likely get further ahead by taking the risk of refusal when asking for a raise. Whereas being a status quo drone may go nowhere.

[Figleaf]

What if the parent doesn't teach that lesson, but instead inculcates a contempt for society/law?

Is that parent being negligent? Should the state step in to ensure the child learns different?

[Fortunata]

My parents were raised with the understanding that the police are your friends. The police are there to help you. They did not teach their children the same thing - they taught that if you were respectful and law-abiding you would be likely not be in need of the police nor in conflict with them. I will be teaching something different again - obey and respect the law and stay away from law enforcement whenever you can.

[ScottSA]

What if the parent doesn't teach that lesson, but instead inculcates a contempt for society/law?

Is that parent being negligent? Should the state step in to ensure the child learns different?

I assume that this entire thread is a roundabout attack on my way of thinking, so lets clarify the terms of this first:

A There is no "law" against viewing homosexual marriage as immoral. Contempt for the law is irrelevant to the question. Interesting that swealian logic has not progressed much, although swealian low cunning as to how to launch coded attacks is somewhat more subtle than it once was. Unfortunately this isn't the place to goad swealian psychosis through its various stages.

B Only in a platonic nightmare would a parent be found negligent for holding moral views against those of the state.

[Figleaf]

I assume that this entire thread is a roundabout attack on my way of thinking,

No, it's not all about you, though a comment of yours did provoke this line of thinking. Charles Anthony expressed an interest in the general topic, so I posted this here.

A There is no "law" against viewing homosexual marriage as immoral. Contempt for the law is irrelevant to the question. Interesting that swealian logic has not progressed much, although swealian low cunning as to how to launch coded attacks is somewhat more subtle than it once was. Unfortunately this isn't the place to goad swealian psychosis through its various stages.

?

B Only in a platonic nightmare would a parent be found negligent for holding moral views against those of the state.

Well, welcome to the real world. Consider the examples of Islamic militants who raise their children to hate Jewish people. Or bigots here who raise their children to hate Muslims. Are these kinds of beliefs in the interests of the children, or society? What reasoning makes a space for these kinds of upbringing?

[DogOnPorch]

Posit: Forget about trying to teach children about respect for the law. It is unjust and hypocritical in its application. Rather teach them to have respect for other human beings under all circumstances. When you model tolerance and acceptance, the law will be unnecessary in all but the extreme cases.

You're thinking right, there...unfortunately many of the "pooh-flinging naked-apes" are incapable of reason or manners...no matter their training. Live in a neighborhood where crime and drugs are a problem and you quickly get to hate humankind the animal. Only a thin layer keeps civilization from slipping into a puddle of crap.

It's up to educated looneys like us forum-nerds to keep the flag of civilization flying...be you Side A or Side B in what-ever forum battle.

----------------------------------------------

If ever there is tomorrow when we're not together...there is something you must always remember. you are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.

---A. A. Milne

[marcinmoka]

I'm gonna also drop the positivist approach. Law is Law and Morality is morality. Do not confuse the two.

If you find a law morally objectionable, than try and get it changed.....via the legal/legislative system, since we do not live in a fascist/communist state but a flourishing democracy. One may not break it simply because they choose.

[marcinmoka]

Live in a neighborhood where crime and drugs are a problem and you quickly get to hate humankind the animal.

Oh so true.

Only a thin layer keeps civilization from slipping into a puddle of crap.

And this thin layer is the law.

[Charles Anthony]

I assume that this entire thread is a roundabout attack on my way of thinking,

You think?

Consider the examples of Islamic militants who raise their children to hate Jewish people. Or bigots here who raise their children to hate Muslims. Are these kinds of beliefs in the interests of the children, or society? What reasoning makes a space for these kinds of upbringing?

The answer is NO, the state should not intervene.

The reasoning is simple: the state can not assume replacing all negligent parents.

What would you have the state do?

[DogOnPorch]

Oh so true.

I hate to say it too...but I'm jaded. There are good people and there are bad people. There's no real middle ground...just different shades of black and white. Either you're with the program or you're not. Either you care about your fellow man or you don't.

Bad people should go bye-bye...

Don't take the analogy wrong...

---------------------------------------------------------

No bum talks about a bum.

---Carlo Gambino

[Posit]

I would disagree.

I know that most people believe they are good people. Even the most lecherous murdered believes he is a good person. So where does that leaves us?

It is my belief that all crime (being deliberate harmful acts against another human being) are crimes of insanity. The acts are moments of ill-thinking, or non-thinking about the consequences. They are moments of intense anger, hatred or fear. Because most people believe they are good, their crimes must come from irrationality.

In the case of gang crime, it is a bit more complicated. We are raised in society to seek the approval of others to validate our self-worth. In most healthy families we receive that validation from our parents, grandparents or someone special in our lives, like and aunt or uncles etc. When that is missing we once could turn to our communities and in the case of more affluent families this loss of community is often responsible for rich kids turning to crime for validation, and or entertainment. In many cases in gang neighbourhoods, parenting roles are mixed up, or even absent. The greater family and community can no longer protect and guide the child. The gang represents a community where they validate each other and protect each other. At first most gang members are indoctrinated with small petty crime and as their status in the gang community rises, they move on to more elevated types of crime.

The state is not to blame totally. The loss of social safety nets - the last stop gap measures to family and community break-down - are only part of the problem. However the major part of the blame lies on us, as members of society, as members of the community and even as brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents. We are losing our connection with each other as we are conditioned to believe that work is more important than family or community, or even our selves, our health or our spiritual well-being. It really is ill-thinking to put work before all the rest, and in a healthy and mentally fit well adjusted person work will be the last priority.

If we want to raise good families and strong and healthy communities we have to change our way of thinking and let others find their own morality instead of trying to impose ours on them.

[ScottSA]

I assume that this entire thread is a roundabout attack on my way of thinking,

You think?

Yes. You don't know sweal very well if you think not. What I mean by "this entire thread" is the initial post by sweal figleaf.

[Figleaf]

I assume that this entire thread is a roundabout attack on my way of thinking,

You think?

Consider the examples of Islamic militants who raise their children to hate Jewish people. Or bigots here who raise their children to hate Muslims. Are these kinds of beliefs in the interests of the children, or society? What reasoning makes a space for these kinds of upbringing?

The answer is NO, the state should not intervene.

The reasoning is simple: the state can not assume replacing all negligent parents.

What would you have the state do?

The reasoning you offer, that the state can't fulfill such a burden, is an incomplete answer because presumably the state could extend its resources to capture some portion of the more extreme cases. Thus, while the practical reason may limit state choices, it doesn't answer the principle side of the issue.

[Figleaf]

I assume that this entire thread is a roundabout attack on my way of thinking,

You think?

Yes. You don't know sweal very well if you think not. What I mean by "this entire thread" is the initial post by sweal figleaf.

Well, thanks a lot Charles Anthony, by asking me to start this thread you've probably lured me into becoming ScottSA's next victim for a campaign of abuse.

BTW, doesn't that post above constitute a disruption of the thread?

[Charles Anthony]

Well, thanks a lot Charles Anthony, by asking me to start this thread you've probably lured me into becoming ScottSA's next victim for a campaign of abuse.

Mooooah! Ha! Ha! Ha! You fell for my trap!

BTW, doesn't that post above constitute a disruption of the thread?

Possibly. Thankfully your quote contains the relevant material. Thus, I will not have to de-activate any of my Ignore settings.

Yes. You don't know sweal very well if you think not. What I mean by "this entire thread" is the initial post by sweal figleaf.

I also do not care. I also have a short memory and a sense of humor. That is what keeps me going.

The Opening Post clearly illustrates the premise by identifying "communist and libertarian parents" as examples and YOU do not come across as a person who falls under either of those categories.

Nevertheless, we can also keep things simple by accepting that the Opening Post is polite and conforms to the forum rules.

By the way, if you identify yourself as a target of the Opening Post, why not share your thoughts by addressing the discussion?????

The reasoning you offer, that the state can't fulfill such a burden, is an incomplete answer because presumably the state could extend its resources to capture some portion of the more extreme cases.

Granted.

Thus, while the practical reason may limit state choices, it doesn't answer the principle side of the issue.

If we only look at the principle, my answer is simply no because I do not accept state authority.

However, I can still address the issue if we replace the state with the next door neighbor or a passing good samaritan.

Thus, my answer is still NO because I do not consider "teaching disdain for the state or law" to qualify as abuse nor a reason to intervene.

The onus on justifying an intervention in such a case should be on the state because a "teaching a disdain for the state or law" is not an assault against an other person.

However, if a parent were to teach the child to commit assault, that would be reason for a good samaritan to intervene.

If a parent were to teach the child to commit a state crime and thus put the child in danger of state intervention, that would be reason for a good samaritan to intervene too.

In my mind, both of the above would be the same as a parent putting a child in danger which is abuse.

[Figleaf]

However, I can still address the issue if we replace the state with the next door neighbor or a passing good samaritan.

Thus, my answer is still NO because I do not consider "teaching disdain for the state or law" to qualify as abuse nor a reason to intervene.

The onus on justifying an intervention in such a case should be on the state because a "teaching a disdain for the state or law" is not an assault against an other person.

(For the record, I'm playing devil's advocate just a bit here.)

Disdain for the law is not simply confined to the realm of pure opinion. Particularly in dealing with children, whose image of society is perforce incomplete, it is very possible that teaching disdain for the law could lead to behaviours based on that disdain. Consider the libertarian who in the privacy of her home smokes pot and tells her kids that pot is okay. So far there is no particular state crisis, but if the kid acts on what the mother says rather than on what the law says, has the kid been well served by that kind of parenting?

[Charles Anthony]

Disdain for the law is not simply confined to the realm of pure opinion. Particularly in dealing with children, whose image of society is perforce incomplete, it is very possible that teaching disdain for the law could lead to behaviours based on that disdain.

I agree.

Consider the libertarian who in the privacy of her home smokes pot and tells her kids that pot is okay. So far there is no particular state crisis, but if the kid acts on what the mother says rather than on what the law says, has the kid been well served by that kind of parenting?

Are you concerned about the child getting harmed as a result of copying a parent's "unlawful" behavior?

Example: falling down intoxicated, drowning, getting beaten up, moving on to harder drugs, getting a criminal record, etc.

or

Are you concerned about the child learning to skirt The Law and gradually developing into an anarchist?

[eXploiTeD]

I will teach my children to fulfill certain moral obligations.

If that goes against the wishes of the State, so be it.

Respect for the law is only good so long as the law respects you.

[marcinmoka]

Respect for the law is only good so long as the law respects you.

But the law cannot be made to measure as each and everyone of our fellow 32 million inhabitants see fit. There are people out there who deem "honour killing" a morally justifiable, if not morally necessary act.

This a democracy. You have a right to try and amend it. Otherwise, respect the law, or face it's consequences.

[eXploiTeD]

But the law cannot be made to measure as each and everyone of our fellow 32 million inhabitants see fit. There are people out there who deem "honour killing" a morally justifiable, if not morally necessary act.

This a democracy. You have a right to try and amend it. Otherwise, respect the law, or face it's consequences.

If a democracy systematically undermines human rights, there is no moral obligation whatsoever for accepting it's authority. Knowing when those obligations are dissolved is a fairly simple task. The only legitimate use of force is that which is intended to prevent or punish a more harmful act. Thus, if the government were to start using wide-scale and systematic violence against it's own citizens, I am relieved from whatever legal/moral obedience I had to it.

Honour killings do not fit those criteria... but German citizens sabotaging Nazi supply lines (i.e. terrorism) certainly does. There are thousands of other examples of this sort of thing, so dismissing the use of vigilante violence against the State when clearly required is very shortsighted. As WWII showed us, even democracies are capable of producing great violence...

[Figleaf]

Are you concerned about the child getting harmed as a result of copying a parent's "unlawful" behavior?

Example: falling down intoxicated, drowning, getting beaten up, moving on to harder drugs, getting a criminal record, etc.

or

Are you concerned about the child learning to skirt The Law and gradually developing into an anarchist?

I think I mean the child thinking she is doing the latter, but from the point of view of the law or society, doing the former sort of inadvertently.

Imagine a kid who's brought up to believe that Freeman-on-the-land nonsense we saw on another thread. Such a kid might fall afoul of the law out of simple confusion.

[marcinmoka]

If a democracy systematically undermines human rights,Thus, if the government were to start using wide-scale and systematic violence against it's own citizens, I am relieved from whatever legal/moral obedience I had to it.

No. Then it is not a democracy. If a democracy functions right, as ours, we have a fair justice system with built in mechanisms to prevent utter contempt of the law. If you take away this element, than it ceases being a democracy.

In an authoritarian dictatorship, than one could argue a certain level of disobedience to the law. But since you are able to make such posts on the internet, I would assume you do not inhabit such conditions.

Point being, in our society, you can't just decide willy nilly....I don't like that law because it's immoral. Your morality differs from everyone else, so it cannot form the basis of our decision making process, otherwise we face the dissolution of a functioning society.

But if a society is not functioning.....

[Charles Anthony]

No. Then it is not a democracy. If a democracy functions right, as ours,

Not only is that highly debatable but it is unwise to assume that everybody who submits to our democracy agrees.

In an authoritarian dictatorship, than one could argue a certain level of disobedience to the law. But since you are able to make such posts on the internet, I would assume you do not inhabit such conditions.

Is that how you discern between a dictatorship and a democracy????

I think I mean the child thinking she is doing the latter, but from the point of view of the law or society, doing the former sort of inadvertently.

The trouble with this query is that it seems to personify the State and presupposes that the State has an objective. Does the State have an objective?

If a democracy systematically undermines human rights, there is no moral obligation whatsoever for accepting it's authority. Knowing when those obligations are dissolved is a fairly simple task.

Agreed.