Printable View
This question is very simple, Very BAsic Question
Do you believe it is your job as a Parent or the Schools (Be It A Priavte or Public School) Job to teach your Children Morals?? The Right and Wrong Way To Live LIfe?? I am NOT TALKING ABOUT BIBLE STUDY IN THIS THREAD OR RELIGIOUS STUDY , THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN ANOTHER THREAD I am simply asking about teaching chidren morals,Is it your job as a parent and part of parenting or the schools job?? Caat be an simpler then that
Why stop at the parents and school? How about peers? Society? Work? Isn't it an ongoing process all our lives? Learning morals is about empathy and understanding other peoples predicaments and not fearing authority, isn't it? So just by teaching anything, schools teach morals.
Yes. My job.
But as Tom says, it's also the job of others in society too. Look at the anarchy there is in inner cities where good citizens avoid castigating youngsters' misbehaviour, so that now it is dangerous if one brave individual tries to. It sounds trite, but when I was a boy, if I was caught misbehaving, any adult would take it on himself to reprimand me, and I would have accepted it. Nowadays, no adult would dare to do that.
In my view, the teaching of morals is the responsibility of everyone, parents, neighbours, teachers, parish priests, police, and so on. And children are entitled to trust and expect anyone to guide them.
TYWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
But the Basic responsibilty the main rsponsiblity remains with the Parents 1st I beleive
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I presume your Yes answer meant it is the Parents who are primarly responsible for teaching kids Morals , am i correct??Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Thank you that was what i wasasking it is primarly the parents and nobody else, that does not mean other can't so it, it just meand those primarily responsible for teaching kids morals are the parents
You'd have thought so, wouldn't you. But what if I allow my children to steal, assault people, and even to commit rape? Does that make it OK? Surely society must step in and give those children a proper upbringing. Otherwise it has no business punishing them for any crimes they might commit, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
And before you say, I as the neglectful parent, must take the responsibility, I would point out that my own parents were exactly the same, and theirs before them: half of Australia is descended from my wayward ancestors who got deported to penal colonies back in the good old days. So I don't know any better and am just not equipped to give moral guidance.
However, I am prolific and the number of my offspring is great.
TYWD
Most parents are responisble for the action of their cchildren til the children til they turn 18, when i say mosyt I mean there are some who will not take that responsability, but the reality is if they are minors and live with you, and break the law, dameage property untimately you as their parent and legal guardian will be held responasble for what they did, and thus be responsinble for paying any damamgesQuote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
we had an iccident near wherei live the parents of some high school kids (all under 18) had drtinking party, the parents were busted, the judge told them that they as parents are respinasible for sving under aged people liquor in there hom,e and if they did not know the kids were drinking, because it is there how and the kids are underaged thae parents are still responasible for the actions of their minor children in their house, 1 parent got 2 years probation, the other 4 consective weekends in jail, the judge also told them if it happens again they are looking at jail time for both, that this was 1 warninig he was issuing (btw., at the party nobody stopped ot check in on the kids, tha parents that is and 2 went out to drive home DUI both were killed in a ceash 5 minutes from the party, the parents were charged with involuntary manslughter)
say for ecample one of your kds keys your neighbors car, or breaks their window on THERE CAR OR INFRONT OF THERE HOUSE, they may hAve done it, but ultimately because they are minors it is your respnsabiity
as their legal guardian is what i am saying
Absolutely that is what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
I think we all would agree that it is the responsibilty of all adults to to "teach" morals and proper conduct to the youth they come into contact with. As a schoolkid if I didn't give up my seat on the bus to a lady the conductor or an adult would point out my impoliteness in no uncertain terms.
Forgive me if I hijack this thread a bit with a related point. Should morals, politeness and similar subjects which all go to making us all "decent citizens" be taught in a formal manner at schools. I would say yes. They are more important than algebra or learning about the roman empire and it is something that every person needs to know and master. And in an increasingly multi-cultural world perhaps the morals of other cultures is worth knowing or at least being aware of.
I would define Morals, a personal conduct, habits, ect like not only being polite but teacging children the dangers of Drugs, Unprotected Sex, aswell as other things parent feel they feel their kids need ot know as they gorw and learn Morals to me is a whole sum of how the persons, asks, behaves, how they treat ofthe,r what type of activities the ingage in, ie: sports, debate clases, drug or no drug use, having sex ect ect it encompases on they learn to live their lives ans how treat and act around othersQuote:
Originally Posted by Moonraker
Morality is a very slippery concept, one which changes over time and distance. What one person considers to be immoral, another will consider perfectly acceptable. Those in this community must certainly be hyper-aware of that.
If you walk through a shopping mall in this country, I would venture to guess that upwards of 75% of the female shoppers you see will be wearing pants, whether jeans or slacks. A hundred years ago it would have been considered immoral and, in some places, illegal, for a woman to wear man's clothing. Even today, in some areas of the world, it would be a crime carrying severe penalties.
So how can you teach morality to a child? Certainly, the parents hold the largest share of the responsibility. They must raise the child within their own standards of morality. But when a child is spending a third of his day, perhaps half of his waking time, outside of the home he must also learn from others. Teachers, especially, have a responsibility, not only to teach a curriculum, but also to teach the children how to interact with one another, how to stay within an accepted mode of conduct. And they must help the children to reconcile the real world with what they are taught at home. How can a child cope with the idea that what they have learned from their parents as being immoral and unacceptable behavior in the home is common practice and perfectly acceptable at school? It is the teachers who must teach them to deal with these contradictions.
Police are also expected to teach acceptable codes of conduct. Many police representatives go around to schools teaching of the dangers of drugs and gangs. True, their focus tends to be more on the legal side of the issues, as it should be. But there is still the acceptable mode of conduct which the children must learn. And once again, how can a child reconcile being told by police and teachers that drugs are bad, and then go home to parents who regularly use some form of drugs for recreation?
And where do we draw the line? If my code of morality differs significantly from society as a whole, how far can I be permitted to go in teaching my children this code? How far can I go to enforce this morality with my children? Recently there was a case in Canada involving a teen-aged girl who refused to wear the burka, or hajib, at school. She was killed by her father for this refusal. Admittedly, Islam does not condone the death of this girl for this particular "crime" but it does apparently permit the father to beat her for her disobedience, an act which many people in this country consider far more repugnant than the girl's refusal to obey her father's wishes.
Did this girl commit an immoral act? By her father's standards, and the standards of his religion, yes, she did. By the standards of their adopted country, absolutely not! Again, where does one draw the line?
We cannot rely solely on the parents to teach morality, not if we wish the children to become integrated into society. It has to be taught by everyone, whether through active teaching or simply by example. We must all bear the burden of this training, because we must all bear the burden of our failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
But would you agree that the Parent is the Primary person to teach it is what I mean, I realize kids learn from everywhere but I feel it is Primaril;y the Parents job to teahc and set direction for kids as they continue to learn and grow
I would agree that the parents are the most likely teachers. The kids tend to spend more time with their parents, especially at the earlier, more formative ages, than with anyone else. And I will agree that the parents SHOULD have the primary responsibility. But, as the kids grow older and become more involved in the world, there is more contact with others besides the parents, including teachers and others in authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
And how many parents ignore their responsibility, or teach things which society would consider wrong? I have personally encountered cases where parents used their children to shoplift from stores, and I have heard of other similar cases. Now, perhaps the parents consider this moral, from their point of view, but society does not. Who's right?
Society isn't always right but in this case I'd say they were right on if they considered shoplifting wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Society is the 500 pound gorilla: it may not always be right but it usually gets its way!Quote:
Originally Posted by Warbaby1943
Mate I believe it is not only the parents job but the school and immediate families job to do the teaching as well if to a lesser degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
If the parents abdicate then ultimately you will have strangers teaching your kids about morality. And personally I think that's very sad.
Sad, but absolutely essential.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_G
Some people are physically equipped to become parents, but they do not have any idea about parenting. Their kids have to be helped, or they'll end up the same as their parents and producing another generation of misfits.
TYWD
Earlier I made a comment about parents teaching their kids to steal. Well, lo and behold: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325552,00.html
For the highlights:
"A grandmother, her daughter and some of her grandchildren tried to steal $900 worth of merchandise from a Target store in Lodi, 35 miles south of Sacramento. An 8-year-old and a 5-year-old were among the family members detained."
Now that's what I call teaching your kids morality!
I saw that news item. It is terrible. We punish the wrong things in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
"The 5-year-old actually had a pack of gum. A small item but we could see where her life was heading because she thinks more than likely this is a normal way of life, this is what you do," said Dale Eubanks of the Lodi police.
And where the parents fail, other social welfare agencies must take over, or the child cannot be blamed if she does turn out bad.
I agree, you see, hear and read aboutit almosr daily where child prorectiveservices doesstep inQuote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Isn't this upside down logic? People who have nothing to lose, ie very poor people have their morals about property eroded. People with lots to lose develop a strong sense of stealing being wrong. History is full of examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
It's the same for anything we find morally reprehensible. Suicide bombers sacrifice their lives because their lives is total shit, and they have nothing left to lose. People who've sacrificed themselves for the cause can be found in every single culture...and I bet none of them had much to lose.
Even if they wanted to, how to keep parents alone being the source of their children's morals, is beyond me. Our morals are what they are because of an intricate web of economic pressures. They are what they are because that is what is the most efficient from an economical vantage point for all society. Moral right has to with who has the power.
To get all high and mighty and think that our great morals is because of what we've been taught by our parents is just another thinly veiled attempt to see one-self as a superior human being. Because of course, our own morals will always be superior to others, won't they? I think this is the basis for all discussions on who should teach our kids morals. If are kids don't behave according to our plan, we like to think they've been corrupted somehow. Kids morals of course reflects how much power they have and what they own. And how much they understand they have. Which isn't a lot.
That was a nice Saturday morning rant.
Feeling better?
Much better. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
I would say there are some fundamentals in morality which are universally accepted so there should be no problem on that score. And even if not, there are principles on which morality is based so that is a good foundation to learn about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
To interpret the word "teaching" as meaning telling you what to do or think is incorrect. The is another thread about teaching the Bible where I commented that learning about something and being told it is right is another matter. I learned about facism, that doesn't been I was taught to be a neo-nazi. Children can be informed and come to their own conclusions based on facts.
To take the women in pants example I would say that 100% of schoolchildren were born in the women in pants era. If the education is valid for the world in which they live, that's close enough. Although following on from my previous point I would teach them that dress is an aspect of morality and look at various examples throughout history and today, including the veil. Discussion can include topics like why can a man go bare chested and not a woman. Who knows that may changes in the future (and before too long I pray..hehe). And knowing about the dress code of others (eg the veil) and to respect it may make the world a bit more tolerant. How many times in the west do you see cartoons poking fun at the veil? But you never see a cartoon about the woman wearing a veil at a funeral!
Offhand I cannot think of a good word to encompass everything, but for now I will settle for "citizenship". All the things that children need to know to prepare them to be good citizens and good includes being good to themselves (eg drugs) and those they come into contact with (eg families).Quote:
Originally Posted by mkemse
Most of teaching and morality focuses on thing you should not do. But I would like kids to know about what you can do. To take drugs as an example it's not enough to simply say don't do drugs, offer an alternative way to have fun or overcome problems.
And there is another aspect of citizenship that disturbs me. All too often people are not aware of there rights. Governments are all to keen to tell you what you cannot do (eg laws) but don't seem so energetic about telling you your rights or assistance you are entitled to under law. Let's even the playing field a bit.
Everyone seems to be stridently agreeing with each other. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucie
My best gues it that they are because everyone pretty much agrees with the question
That's a rotten thing to say! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucie