How would you answer this question?

[intothewoods]

Kerion I like your friends style. My children have asked me is I have done drugs, or if I have ever driven drunk, or stolen anything or had pre-marital sex. I have always answered honestly without given more details than are necessary. I also give a little talk on what I have learned from my mistakes. My teenage daughter has thanked me for being honest. She once told me that she doesn't feel as pressured to be perfect nor is she afraid to tell me when she has made a mistake.

I do what I can to keep the line of communication open with my children.

I like this a lot.

So, my first planned response, when the child asked this question, (because I wanted to be prepared in case I was asked, too), was to say, "Yes" and then add a lot of qualifiers.

Yes...but I know better now and I try my best not to break the law.

Yes...but I was very young and I thought it was cool, and that's a bad reason.

Etc, etc.

After all, my reasoning is that despite the fact the we've all done it, that doesn't mean that we should give kids the idea that breaking the law is OK.

My friend, L, answered, simply, "Yes, I have."

No qualifiers, no explanation, just the facts.

The kids then asked how she'd broken the law and, once again, she replied with the facts only. Her infractions were minor, as most people's would be, but she didn't, at any time, make a comment about the ethical or moral implications of her actions. I found this really interesting and, in retrospect, I think it's a good way to answer such a question. I like that she trusted the kids - and they are very well behaved children - to come to their own conclusions. I like that she didn't talk down to them. And I like that she didn't ever discourage their questions.

It made me think about the fine balance between teaching kids to be good people and good citizens and letting them find their own way in the world and develop critical thinking. At what point do we let them make up their own minds?

In the time I've spent with these two kids, I've seen a couple of well-mannered, kind, joyful, clever little humans. Their mother constantly surprises me with her very honest, but dedicated, (and balanced), method of parenting.

I'm sure any offspring of mine would be nervous wrecks. LOL.

What do you think of that kind of response to the question in the OP?

I think that's perfectly fine. People do have different parenting styles, first of all. I do talk a lot (shocker) and share my opinion of what is right and wrong often, but I feel he's at an age where more guidance is needed (less than when he was younger, more than he'll need next year, and so on). What are the rules in our house, in school, in the world. He's soaking all that up right now. And, let me tell you, he's never had a problem expressing his opinion. So I don't worry about expressing mine. Family dynamics differ. We are a house that is big on lively dialogue.

On the other hand, there's a constant tension between parental authority and a child's independence and developing sense of self. It's always shifting. So some topics I'm more heavy-handed with and some I'm less so. Also, I don't enforce rules that I can't follow.

 

[ZRT]

I hope you were just kidding. I am an easy going person but this is most likely my one and only pet peeve. My brother is like this. He thinks because he lives in a million dollar+ house that rules don't apply to him or his children. His children are brats and impossible to be around. Most of the bullies in my children's schools have been rich brats who parents have taught them this same thing.

I'm serious, but not in the 'I'm better than other people because of my status'.

(Because hey, most of my life my status has pretty much sucked, in socialite terms.)

Society needs rules to function. But society has a lot of stupid, clunky, nonsensical rules, like the one Homburg mentioned. And some rules are made by idiots, just because they have the power to make rules.

So I examine a rule critically. If it's functional, viable, and logical, then yeah, I'm down with it. But if it doesn't make sense, my consideration becomes 'what are the consequences, and am I willing to suffer them?' I feel beholden to no code just because somebody wrote it down somewhere. Hell, I can write a list of rules myself. It's not hard.

Ironically enough, a large portion of my job involves enforcement of rules, and often rules that people don't like. What I have to do is work with the interpretation of rules generated from an office or an orderly meeting room out into the 'OHGOD WE NEED TO GET THIS JOB DONE' mindset that translates into the field.

Now, you take the rules out in the field, and you have to make decisions, often snap judgments, that people's lives can hang on. Sometimes its straightforward. Sometimes two rules conflict. Sometimes there's no good answer at all, and any which way you go means some poor bastard could get splattered all over the place.

Rules aren't inherently bad. Dogma is. Mindless adherence to rules can be worse than having no rules at all.

 

[Keroin]

I'm serious, but not in the 'I'm better than other people because of my status'.

(Because hey, most of my life my status has pretty much sucked, in socialite terms.)

Society needs rules to function. But society has a lot of stupid, clunky, nonsensical rules, like the one Homburg mentioned. And some rules are made by idiots, just because they have the power to make rules.

So I examine a rule critically. If it's functional, viable, and logical, then yeah, I'm down with it. But if it doesn't make sense, my consideration becomes 'what are the consequences, and am I willing to suffer them?' I feel beholden to no code just because somebody wrote it down somewhere. Hell, I can write a list of rules myself. It's not hard.

Ironically enough, a large portion of my job involves enforcement of rules, and often rules that people don't like. What I have to do is work with the interpretation of rules generated from an office or an orderly meeting room out into the 'OHGOD WE NEED TO GET THIS JOB DONE' mindset that translates into the field.

Now, you take the rules out in the field, and you have to make decisions, often snap judgments, that people's lives can hang on. Sometimes its straightforward. Sometimes two rules conflict. Sometimes there's no good answer at all, and any which way you go means some poor bastard could get splattered all over the place.

Rules aren't inherently bad. Dogma is. Mindless adherence to rules can be worse than having no rules at all.

I know where you're coming from and, for the most part, I concur. Lots of times rules/laws are made to protect the small percentage of idiots who lack even a gram of common sense.

But I wonder about trying to convey the complexities of the issue to a very young person. Still, I like the idea of leaving out judgement because sometimes rules and laws need to be broken. I mean Rosa Parks is a prime example of someone who broke the rules for a very good reason.

How do we pass on the idea that laws should be followed...unless they shouldn't be followed or can't be followed? Or is that something that should wait until a child is much older in order to be understood?

 

[ZRT]

I know where you're coming from and, for the most part, I concur. Lots of times rules/laws are made to protect the small percentage of idiots who lack even a gram of common sense.

But I wonder about trying to convey the complexities of the issue to a very young person. Still, I like the idea of leaving out judgement because sometimes rules and laws need to be broken. I mean Rosa Parks is a prime example of someone who broke the rules for a very good reason.

How do we pass on the idea that laws should be followed...unless they shouldn't be followed or can't be followed? Or is that something that should wait until a child is much older in order to be understood?

My parents talked to me like an adult. Where my mother would tangle up is in metaphysical stuff, like 'what happens when you die?', being as how it was a nonreligious household. She often tells me that she was anxiously waiting for me to get away from the tough ones like that and on to the easy stuff like sex.

I've always been of that school of thought myself, but I've never raised a young one. The kid I raised I inherited when he was around the age of twelve, so he had a certain grasp of nuance by the time he came under my wing.

Hm.

See, my parents explained the reasoning behind the rules to me when I was a kid. I learned very quickly the difference between things that I absolutely was expected to conform to the rules on, and the things that I could get away with pushing the boundaries on, even if it was going to result in some kind of punishment.

Basically, if they actually took the time to sit me down and explain -why- something was very important, that meant that it was a very important rule, even if I didn't grasp the subtle complexities of the matter. On the other hand, if it was an offhand 'don't do that' or 'do this', then it was probably something I could push on.

Take an example: my mother had a lawn service when I was a kid. I learned very quickly that the various implements of destruction she was working with- weedeater, lawnmower, edger and so on were not toys, and when she was working them I was to keep myself and especially my extremities well clear of the working areas. She showed me the blades on the lawnmower, she showed me the blades on the edgers, and explained that my precious extendable bits could get mangled or removed by those work surfaces, and that delivered the message quite nicely.

 

[intothewoods]

I do think this conversation is interesting, but I have to say the choices that I think are very important in terms of what to say to my kid and how to say it often turn out to be less important than some (what seems to me to be) random thing he hones in on. I think how a parent talks or doesn't talk about ethics at a very young age is less important than the ethical choices that parent makes every day and the kid observes.

 

[ZRT]

I do think this conversation is interesting, but I have to say the choices that I think are very important in terms of what to say to my kid and how to say it often turn out to be less important than some (what seems to me to be) random thing he hones in on. I think how a parent talks or doesn't talk about ethics at a very young age is less important than the ethical choices that parent makes every day and the kid observes.

Slam dunk.

I think most people in this world learn more by observation than by conversation.

 

[JMohegan]

I know where you're coming from and, for the most part, I concur. Lots of times rules/laws are made to protect the small percentage of idiots who lack even a gram of common sense.

But I wonder about trying to convey the complexities of the issue to a very young person. Still, I like the idea of leaving out judgement because sometimes rules and laws need to be broken. I mean Rosa Parks is a prime example of someone who broke the rules for a very good reason.

How do we pass on the idea that laws should be followed...unless they shouldn't be followed or can't be followed? Or is that something that should wait until a child is much older in order to be understood?

I think the message can be very consistent, but the examples discussed more complex as the child grows older.

I agree that some laws are silly, others unnecessarily restrictive, and some just plain morally wrong. So I don't believe that the message should be: "Respect all laws." However, I do believe that stressing respect for the authority of the law is key.

By "authority," I mean both the power of the legal system to inflict consequences, AND the notion that the law (in theory at least) exists for the benefit of the community at large (i.e. - it's not all about you).

In my view, if a citizen perceives that a law is immoral, then he/she has a moral responsibility to work to change it. This is why Rosa Parks is such a wonderful example.

 

[Keroin]

I think the message can be very consistent, but the examples discussed more complex as the child grows older.

I agree that some laws are silly, others unnecessarily restrictive, and some just plain morally wrong. So I don't believe that the message should be: "Respect all laws." However, I do believe that stressing respect for the authority of the law is key.

By "authority," I mean both the power of the legal system to inflict consequences, AND the notion that the law (in theory at least) exists for the benefit of the community at large (i.e. - it's not all about you).

In my view, if a citizen perceives that a law is immoral, then he/she has a moral responsibility to work to change it. This is why Rosa Parks is such a wonderful example.

I was thinking of this topic last night when I was watching Good Night and Good Luck and your post today also touched upon my thoughts. The theory of law, the idea of authority is, as you said, a benefit to the community at large. In practice, however, laws can be detrimental and authority is often abused. I'm thinking here of McCarthy and his witch hunts.

Edward R. Murrow's line about not confusing dissent with disloyalty is important. I think encouraging children to question laws, rules and authority - in a constructive manner - makes for better citizens, adults more capable of recognizing when a law is, in fact, immoral, or when a person or organization is abusing their authority.

 

[intothewoods]

Slam dunk.

I think most people in this world learn more by observation than by conversation.

Thank you. I wish more people around here would recognize my brilliance.

I was thinking of this topic last night when I was watching Good Night and Good Luck and your post today also touched upon my thoughts. The theory of law, the idea of authority is, as you said, a benefit to the community at large. In practice, however, laws can be detrimental and authority is often abused. I'm thinking here of McCarthy and his witch hunts.

Edward R. Murrow's line about not confusing dissent with disloyalty is important. I think encouraging children to question laws, rules and authority - in a constructive manner - makes for better citizens, adults more capable of recognizing when a law is, in fact, immoral, or when a person or organization is abusing their authority.

Yes, and laws change. Our U.S. Constitution is a living document.

ETA - I think I'll say that last part to my kid. Mommy, what's a living document?

 

[clock1]

Moral, Civil or Natural?