Quote Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo View Post
"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.
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.

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.