Good. Obedience is a concept out of the outdated model of feudalism.
Um… yes, I think that is technically and historically correct, but…
I’m personally a big fan of laws. I think good laws and the teaching of virtue is an important part of the construction of a good society.
I believe that we have a duty to break unjust laws. Obedience is a harmful thing to teach your kids.
I agree, but I would rephrase. I think it is the duty of citizens to reform unjust laws and use the legal avenues available to us to address the issue. Breaking laws, in and of itself, accomplishes nothing.
I appreciated your comment! Thanks. Have an excellent day.
Thanks for the comments and the kind words! I feel compelled to reply to address a few of your points. I know that your heart is in the right place and that you mean well by what you wrote, and so I am replying not to argue with you or to be a pedant, but because I hope that you might be interested in what I have to say and that it might help you in the future. Apologies in advance for ‘picking your comment apart’ but it’s the easiest way for me to structure my reply.
Breaking laws, in and of itself, accomplishes nothing.
I don’t think this is true, even in the most abstract - imagine we lived in a society where it was against the law to feed the homeless - breaking that law would clearly accomplish feeding a hungry person if nothing else. And beyond that, breaking a law is a clear statement that you do not respect it - laws depend on our compliance, if everyone in a society decides to disregard a law, then it may as well not exist. Finally, it also can serve as an inspiration to others. There has been a lot of writing on the subject of the terrible deeds that humans can do when those deeds are normalised by a group - this can be used for positive, good things just as well.
it is the duty of citizens to reform unjust laws
If you had said “abolish”, I would agree. We should never tolerate injustice, and ‘reform’ implies that there is something worth saving in the injustice. It is far better to completely get rid of the injustice (and whoever was responsible for it) first, and creating a new alternative, if necessary, from scratch - with none of the ideas and/or people involved with the original.
it is the duty of citizens to… use the legal avenues available to us to address the issue
That’s just an optional nicety. As I said before, we should have a zero tolerance policy towards injustice. The law does not dictate what is and is not just, and basically exists to protect the rich and powerful from the rest of us. I have very little respect for the law, and I encourage everyone to see the world the same way that I do. We should help each other, be kind and respectful, work together to build a better future - and I do not see the law as necessary or even desirable for that. The law is just a set of rules given to us by someone who has all of the violence and we have to do what they say or they use the violence against us. It’s not a good thing, it’s abusive.
It’s nice to meet someone willing to have a real, civilized discussion, even though we have different views. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify what I meant in the first quote. Breaking laws, purely for the sake of breaking laws accomplishes nothing. Breaking laws in order to help someone is another matter, and I agree, is justified (to an extent). I have a lot of respect for the law, and I understand that many people do not share that respect. But I agree that the sole purpose of the law is to codify and mediate justice. And if there is an unjust law, it should be made just. Thanks for discussing with me! I really appreciated your points! Many people treat debates as a competition to be won, but I prefer to see them as opportunities to learn about yourself and others and to be able to think critically!
Virtue and obedience are very different concepts. Virtue involves having the knowledge and empathy to make just and moral decisions, obedience involves doing what you’re told to do
Excellent. Agreed.
Great point! I would like to add that obedience could also be about obedience to laws, or collective values. Or, it could be obedience or respect for an authority. Take the Charter of Rights and freedoms, for example. Obedience to the authority of that document ensures that the rights of the individual are respected, as well as the laws governing those rights and freedoms. Without obedience and respect for the document, and to the courts and laws of the land, a society falls apart
Now, I’m speaking philosophically, this couldn’t happen to the UK. I’m just presenting another perspective! Thank you for your point, and have a lovely day! Best wishes.
So what happens when a lot of bad laws are passed, and the legislative system only listens to 1-5% of the population ? Should obedience still be lauded ?
If legal methods of reforming those laws are available, then they should be adhered to. Otherwise, we’re talking about a revolution against a corrupt government, which is a different matter entirely.
Thanks for your perspective, I hadn’t considered that. Have a lovely day!
Obedience isn’t something that should be valued. It is not a particularly useful life skill. Mindlessly following orders isn’t what I want my kids to do in life.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Children should be seen and not heard might be the axiom that comes to mind when thinking of British parenting, but a study suggests the opposite is increasingly the case for modern mothers and fathers.
Conversely, the UK was among the countries at the top of the table for placing a high importance on teaching children not to be selfish and to have an imagination and good manners.
At the top of the table for prioritising obedience were Nigeria, Mexico and Egypt, while Japan, China, South Korea and Sweden ranked below the UK.
In the UK, imagination as a prized quality has risen from 18% to 37% since 1990, while hard work has leapt from 29% to 48%, and perseverance and independence both had a 10 percentage point increase.
The UK also ranks low for believing that having children is a social duty, with just 11% of people holding this view, a figure lower only in the US and Sweden.
British people also rank low for believing that children have a duty to care for their parents – only 31% think this, compared with 98% in China and Egypt.
The original article contains 647 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
We’re now on the third or fourth generation of parents who think the sun shines out of their kids arses and their little cherubs are more special than your cherubs.
The latest generation of parents are all the Emilys and Olivias that grew up shrieking and shouting in restaurants and supermarkets, and not being chastised for it.
It fuckin shows
How many children do you interact with?
Heck, how many people do you interact with?
This feels like a completely biased view; if you were to ask my partner who is a secondary school teaching assistant/supports SEN kids, most of the children/teens being actual problems (and not just annoying someone who, by the sounds of it, doesn’t like children to begin with), are the ones born to parents who don’t give a fuck about encouraging creativety/individuality/imagination, either in combination with no discipline or overtly harsh discipline.
The ones that suffer harsh discipline are often as messed up as those who face absolutely no discipline, (ironically, often they overlap, many face absolutely no discipline most of the time to then have overtly harsh punishment when they push things too far), but make no mistake; the ones who face that early life are not the ones with parents who are encouraging them to be themselves, to use their imagination or to be individual. They are the ones that are forced to be independent because their parent is down the pub leaving them to sort tea for themselves, or the the ones whose home life is never stable with many different but no permanent parental figures.
Heck, I know a few people raised by hippies, even if they’re not hippiesh themselves, they still show a greater appreciation for nature/reading, are generally quite well rounded individuals.
The people I knew who faced overtly strict upbringings, either ended up not having the backbone/social skills to navigate life, or going off of the rails when given the opportunity.
The key, as always, is balance; encourage your child to develop a sense of self (and by extension self worth, self respect and self reliance) while also teaching them that they need to respect others with the same respect that they are shown; if they aren’t shown any respect then they’ll have none for other people.
Children are in a constant state of learning and developing; that’s why they are children; they are developing these skills as much as any other skill.
I’m a bit vague on the specifics, but a social worker friend of mine, who was involved in a particularly nasty case where both parents regularly beat their child: slaps, punches, belts, wooden spoons, whatever was near to hand. The story went that during the trial they would both repeatedly state they had done nothing wrong, that their parents had hit them and “it didn’t harm me” and showed no remorse or guilt in having repeatedly assaulted their kids. In the judge’s closing remarks addressing them both for sentencing (jail time, kids taken away in to care) the judge said something along the lines of
“You have both said multiple times that the abuse you suffered by your parents did you no damage. It did, it did so much damage that it has made you believe that it is OK to beat your own children.”
"Children; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room, they contradict their parents and tyrannize their teachers. Children are now tyrants.” -Socrates
Plato in the original version, although it’s actually an invented quote from a PhD student in about 1905
Who knew! I guess the impact is the same whether it’s from a hundred or a thousand years ago. Kids be kids.
I suspect you’re a victim of the toupee effect. You likely don’t notice all the kids behaving well. However you explicitly notice those that are being terrors. Because of that, all the kids you remember are hellish crotch goblins.
I have a young daughter. She’s very generally very well behaved in public. The few times she’s been a hell raiser, I’ve removed her from public, rapidly. At the same time, I’ve not raised her to obedience by authority. Instead she is cooperative by mutual respect. It’s a lot harder, but seems to help mold a far better little human.
The ones who run riot have often broken their parents. I didn’t truly comprehend the pressure a small child can apply, mentally and emotionally. It can grind you down rapidly. You need a comprehensive plan to outthink them, otherwise they will grind you into the ground and YOLO dance on your (emotional) corpse.
As a person who interacts with children everyday you couldn’t be more wrong. Their grandparents however are usually the worst most entitled shit bags to every be raised.
Honestly, this sounds more like you just don’t like children.
I disagree with you massively, I think the younger generations are brilliant. More emotionally intelligent and socially aware. Makes me hopeful for the future.
