Indoctrination: is it right or wrong?

[LuisDantas]

Quite! But I also don't think we should fret too much about indoctrination - impressionable minds will have deep, lasting, sometimes beneficial and sometimes harmful impressions made on them one way or another.

Isn't that a reason why we should ever be on guard against indoctrination, though?

Forcing the less cerebrally-inclined to "think for themselves" because "taking it on authority" is "wrong" is probably not going to be that effective I don't think. I guess we still have a way to go before the promise of the enlightenment is realized.

It seems to me that you are just pointing out that there are real challenges to be faced. That is hardly a reason not to try.

 

[Deathbydefault]

But how will that work? Most people don't know "humans in general" They just know the people in their community or society.

Well, since most people are "humans in general," whether or not they know it is irrelevant.
The people in their community and society are likely the same for the most part, those on the level of religious extremists and gang members aside.

So is it wrong for a person to inculcate into their children those principle that are "common" to the human's in their general community and society? Supposing for example that community or society is Mulsim or Christian.

As long as extremism is left out and the ideology isn't presented in a way that says "you don't have any other choice but to think this way," I don't see the issue with it.

Common ethics and morals are separate from religion in the first place, but if a religion wants to bolster them, that's fine with me.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Quite! But I also don't think we should fret too much about indoctrination - impressionable minds will have deep, lasting, sometimes beneficial and sometimes harmful impressions made on them one way or another. Forcing the less cerebrally-inclined to "think for themselves" because "taking it on authority" is "wrong" is probably not going to be that effective I don't think. I guess we still have a way to go before the promise of the enlightenment is realized.

It would greatly have helped us over the past 170 years if the Muslims in Iran did think for themselves instead of the indoctrination that Baha'is are unclean and corrupt the earth. We have beeen slaughtered, tortured, imprisoned, our cemeteries desecrated, our holy places destroyed refused citizenship and all because of 'harmless indoctrination'???????

Manipulation is all a part of indoctrination. Independent investigation of truth creates a much healthier brain.

 

[Smart_Guy]

We have to be sensible about it, porn and drugs and alcohol are completely different, where as religion is just a belief, a belief that can condition a child for ever, and everything in the life of that child will be based on that belief.

You think?

Hmm... thank you for your input. It's interesting.

 

[siti]

LuisDantas

Certainly not! Of course we have to try and, yes, we have a duty to guard against indoctrination - but I think you do that by freeing minds and education systems - not by declaring indoctrination "wrong". Our education systems currently (still as far as I can see) depend on indoctrination because we insist that our youth be suitably "equipped" for the adult world by cramming a prescribed basket-load of information into their skulls before the age of 18 (or so) so that they can regurgitate a proportion of it in reasonably intelligible format on exam day. If they're lucky, they 'get' enough of it to get into college and continue the process for a few more years. Then they have kids and start the process of indoctrination all over again for the "benefit" of the next generation. The received "orthodoxies" might evolve, but the method remains the same. They are conditioned to accept this or that idea because the teacher says so, or it is in a text book...etc. How are they then expected to resist indoctrination when it come to bigger questions of religion or philosophy?

But we ain't gonna fix that tonight - so for now we have to be content to encourage free thought - at home, among our friends and acquaintances and in forums like this. Can we really do more than that without falling into the trap of prescribing how people should learn - which is exactly what we are saying should not be done. I think.

 

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas

Certainly not! Of course we have to try and, yes, we have a duty to guard against indoctrination - but I think you do that by freeing minds and education systems - not by declaring indoctrination "wrong".

So you see a difference? What would that be?

 

[psychoslice]

You think?

Hmm... thank you for your input. It's interesting.

Yes and those who indoctrinate the child, of course believe that is how the child should be, because they themselves are also indoctrinated. or conditioned, and so it goes on and on, this is called culture.

 

[siti]

It would greatly have helped us over the past 170 years if the Muslims in Iran did think for themselves instead of the indoctrination that Baha'is are unclean and corrupt the earth. We have beeen slaughtered, tortured, imprisoned, our cemeteries desecrated, our holy places destroyed refused citizenship and all because of 'harmless indoctrination'???????

Manipulation is all a part of indoctrination. Independent investigation of truth creates a much healthier brain.

Did I say 'harmless indoctrination'? Er...no, can't see that anywhere. Anyway, I was responding to the OP question not commenting on Iranian Muslims. How many of them do you think would actually respond to the call to think for themselves if indoctrination were suddenly declared "wrong" by the Ayatollah? Do you think they would quickly cast off a couple of centuries of culturally embedded prejudice and intolerance? I agree that the free exchange of information and genuinely free thinking and education (I mean free of the shackles of superstition and archaic tradition) would be very positive developments. I just can't see it happening any time soon - in Iran or anywhere else for that matter. And in the meantime, parents are going to have to do their best to teach their kids what they think is best for them - aren't they? And how is that not indoctrination? If they indoctrinate them in the doctrines of tolerance, freedom and peace - well and good for now.

 

[siti]

So you see a difference? What would that be?

What would what be? The difference between an impotent declaration and a meaningful process of emancipation of minds? Judging by western standards I'd say the difference is at least a few hundred years (and counting).

Also, can people not see that "indoctrination" is a method - like "instruction" - it is not the method in itself that is intrinsically bad (necessarily) but the object of the process. E.g. instruction is fine if it is for changing the shock absorbers on your car, potentially harmful if it is for making a car bomb. Isn't it the same with indoctrination? Isn't most indoctrination (like learning the alphabet by heart or singing "this is the day the Lord has made") either beneficial or benign? Its only when the indoctrination leads to intolerance and bigotry that it becomes "wrong"? Or am I wrong?

 

[psychoslice]

Indoctrination I believe holds one back from ever growing, it doesn't allow you to step outside that doctrine, the video below is a good example.

 

[allfoak]

Hello guys.

First off, I understand that indoctrination is feeding teachings, namely religious, to children while they are growing up living with their guardians.

According to that definition, do you see it is right or wrong?

I say it is right by default and place, as guardians are the ones responsible in upbringing children and they teach them what they see right for their future. Exceptions are always their, but please don't use that as an excuse here in your assessment. My threads always go within the norms and standards; the default position.

Proverbs 22:6 (NKJV)
6 Train up a child in the way he should go,
And when he is old he will not depart from it.

Parents are God to children, they should be respected as such and allowed to train them in the way they see fit.
I understand that there are many objections to this idea.
Avoiding the problems that come with giving parents complete authority over their children is not possible, nor is it good reason to take away the rights of good parents.
Government should not infringe upon rights that are unalienable.

 

[Thanda]

Well, since most people are "humans in general," whether or not they know it is irrelevant.
The people in their community and society are likely the same for the most part, those on the level of religious extremists and gang members aside.

I'm quite sure that from where you come from (a multicultural and secular society), the values that "humans in general" share does not include some of the things that "humans in general" share in a village in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore what you consider religious extremism (opposition to abortion, birth control perhaps?) may not be considered a basic moral and ethical standard in that Saudi Arabian village.

As long as extremism is left out and the ideology isn't presented in a way that says "you don't have any other choice but to think this way," I don't see the issue with it.

Common ethics and morals are separate from religion in the first place, but if a religion wants to bolster them, that's fine with me.

Do you have an issue with those who teach their sons to think that women don't belong in the kitchen? Would you also rather this was taught in a more opinion "use it don't use it" kind of way?

 

[viole]

It is not about enough or good answers, it is about the contribution. So yes, that statement is enough. Thanks!

As for your further questions, I'll try to answer them for you even tho they are off-topic and go under the exceptional cases I referred twice before, but I'll answer them in the light of the topic.

That form of indoctrination is okay, just I said that indoctrination in general is okay, but (to satisfy your curiosity) the contents it has is questionable and controversial. That parent could be under the impression that that kind of indoctrination is right and fair so they teach it to their children out of care for their future.

Mmmh, I do not think I agree.

The problem is that a child does not know what is an exceptional case, or what is controversial. So, those issues are important when we try to assess the morality of indoctrination.

I also see a logical problem with the claim that indoctrination is right because the parents are mainly interested with the future of their kids.

I, for instance, believe that my kids are better equipped for their future, if I DO NOT tell them what is right or wrong, but let them make up their own mind. I know, easier said than done, but nevertheless I always tried to apply that principle as far as I could. In my case it was sort of a bummer, since my kids became atheists while I was still a devout Christian.

However, the logical problem is that I believe that reducing indoctrination to almost zero is good for their future. And I believe that pushing our ideas on beings that accept them by default, since they are programmed to do exactly that for evolutionary reasons, is mental abuse.

So, is that a good thing that I followed this principle?

If thinking about their future makes my choice automatically right, then we have the case where indoctrination and its negation are both right, which is logically implausible. And makes this discussion pointless.

On a side note. It is probably not true that loving concerns about the future of our children is always a good think. Some people refute to cure their children because they strongly believe that if God takes them, despite their prayers, then it is God's will, and that is really the best for them.

Do you think they are right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm quite sure that from where you come from (a multicultural and secular society), the values that "humans in general" share does not include some of the things that "humans in general" share in a village in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore what you consider religious extremism (opposition to abortion, birth control perhaps?) may not be considered a basic moral and ethical standard in that Saudi Arabian village.

I'm very well aware of the differences, that's why I only used basic examples for application.
How many places on Earth are kids commonly told that fighting whoever whenever is okay?
How many places commonly teach poor treatment of elders?
I'm sure you're reading too far into what I've said.

What I consider religious extremism would be justifying "holy" war and murder and rape and human sacrifice and genocide with religious text and excuses. Opposition to contraceptives and whatnot is outside the spectrum of my argument, as they are not ethically and morally basic, and therefore not common to people in general.

Do you have an issue with those who teach their sons to think that women don't belong in the kitchen? Would you also rather this was taught in a more opinion "use it don't use it" kind of way?

Outside the spectrum of my argument.
I'm not talking about issues that people take a stance on, I'm talking about ethics and morals that are commonly taught around to the world to children by their guardians.
Don't fight unless you have to.
Take education seriously.
Don't lie about stupid stuff.
Stay away from things that'll get you thrown in jail.

Focus on the word "common" in the sense of "common worldwide".
It's common for people to be able to see and hear.
It's common for people to think mistreating elderly people is bad.
It's common for people to not want to go to jail.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Mmmh, I do not think I agree.

The problem is that a child does not know what is an exceptional case, or what is controversial. So, those issues are important when we try to assess the morality of indoctrination.

I also see a logical problem with the claim that indoctrination is right because the parents are mainly interested with the future of their kids.

I, for instance, believe that my kids are better equipped for their future, if I DO NOT tell them what is right or wrong, but let them make up their own mind. I know, easier said than done, but nevertheless I always tried to apply that principle as far as I could. In my case it was sort of a bummer, since my kids became atheists while I was still a devout Christian.

However, the logical problem is that I believe that reducing indoctrination to almost zero is good for their future. And I believe that pushing our ideas on beings that accept them by default, since they are programmed to do exactly that for evolutionary reasons, is mental abuse.

So, is that a good thing that I followed this principle?

If thinking about their future makes my choice automatically right, then we have the case where indoctrination and its negation are both right, which is logically implausible. And makes this discussion pointless.

On a side note. It is probably not true that loving concerns about the future of our children is always a good think. Some people refute to cure their children because they strongly believe that if God takes them, despite their prayers, then it is God's will, and that is really the best for them.

Do you think they are right?

Ciao

- viole

And I respect your "don't agreement"

 

[David1967]

Hello guys.

First off, I understand that indoctrination is feeding teachings, namely religious, to children while they are growing up living with their guardians.

According to that definition, do you see it is right or wrong?

I say it is right by default and place, as guardians are the ones responsible in upbringing children and they teach them what they see right for their future. Exceptions are always their, but please don't use that as an excuse here in your assessment. My threads always go within the norms and standards; the default position.

Good question SG. I think it is right to a point. I believe as you that we teach our children what we see as right, religious and otherwise, to the best of our ability. However I do think that at a certain age that they should be free to choose their own path.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Good question SG. I think it is right to a point. I believe as you that we teach our children what we see as right, religious and otherwise, to the best of our ability. However I do think that at a certain age that they should be free to choose their own path.

Yes, that's a good addition to it.