Self-interest of the liar?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it unethical to coerce a child into believing a lie?
- Thread starter MikeF
- Start date
Self-interest of the liar?
Yes.
This raises another question. If the adult believes a falsehood to be true and coerces a child to believe the falsehood, is there any ethical responsibility for a third party to intervene if they are aware of the falsehood? I'm sure many would say that it depends. What would rise to the level thar would ethically require intervention?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I think our disagreement might be strictly over terminology. What you are calling coercion I call abuse.
Santa Claus was mentioned earlier. Is it ethical for authority figues to insist a child believe in Santa Claus in order to received presents? Is it ethical to encourage a child to abandon common sense and believe that a person can fit down a small chimney flue, or personally visit every household in the world in one evening? How far can one go in an effort to maintain the false beleifs in the child? Is unconditional belief necessary to enjoy the associated events?
Ahh.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
Get a grip! Haha
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Interestingly enough, there can be benefits to the Santa Claus myth. It teaches children that sometimes they are fed a line of bull****, meant to manipulate them into behaving a certain way, and that a plenitude of adults are willing to participate in the ruse. Kids figure it out by age 10 typically. Although some much earlier... and some play along with the myth because... well... there are presents involved.
People would want to say it depends because it is highly context dependent. If we're talking child abuse, that would serve as a prompt for action on my part. If we're talking simple religious fundamentalism (of the non-overtly-abusive type), and I knew this particular child, I'd start speaking my mind at about age 13... when the child can properly understand and engage in skepticism.
My sister is Catholic. I told her that when her son (my nephew) turned 13, I'd start talking to him about atheism if the subject ever came up. She was (and still is cool with that). He turned 13 this year.
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
While I was growing up, my relatives convinced me that Santa was real, and when I realized that he wasn't, I told my younger cousin, and I was punished for telling my cousin the truth. When I was a teenager, I discovered that my relatives had frequently lied to me since I was a child, so I learned not to trust any of them. I didn't trust my parents either because not only did they frequently lie to me, but I also suffered abuse at home while I was growing up. And when I became a mother, my husband and I decided that we would not lie to our children by telling them that Santa Claus was real. It wasn't just because I had been lied to about Santa and felt betrayed by it; it was also because we were both Christians and we felt it was morally wrong to lie to our children.
Certainly every family and communities relationship with the myth is handled in different ways and to different extents. From an ethical standpoint however, is it ethical to instill doubt in a childs correct understanding of how the world actually works? In fact, actual empirical efforts may be discoraged to varying degrees, such as a childs plan to observe the event. The child may be told that even trying to confirm the existence of Santal Claus will disqualify them from receiving expected gifts. There is great emphasis on promoting the notion of blind faith acceptance. How might that lesson play out later in life if fully encorporated into the childs worldview? Is it ethical to hamper a childs critical thinking skills?
Again, I have added the element of coercion. How coercive is too coercive? Should a child be shamed for doubting? Is it ethical to threaten there will be no presents for those who do not believe?
Legally, the bar is set quite high in regards to a parents authority over their child. I think in terms of society overall, that high bar is deemed appropriate. Absent documented abuse, there would be no grounds to intervene. I imagine the ethicist, however, is not limited to legal limits when thinking about the rightness or wrongness of a thing. I imagine that an ethicist would evaluate based upon what they might see as potential long-term (or even short-term?) harm to the individual or society. For example, an ethicist might determine that it is wrong to instill racial hatred or animosity in a child, both on individual and societal grounds, and feel it is in societies interest to mitigate in some way the instilling of that kind of harmful belief in children.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting question. It could be argued that even good parenting involves some "coercion" sometimes. Of course, the word "coercion" has a negative connotation. But we could easily substitute in "structure." Telling a child they have a bedtime, and making them honor it, might qualify as mild coercion. But it could be argued that good parents adopt a structure to help the child have a more organized life. Obviously, there is such a thing as "too much structure" and "not enough structure." The debate concerning that would often involve concrete circumstances. Some parents are overbearing. Others are neglectful. Either one is bad for the child, even though they are polar opposites.
Yes. It might be wrong for someone to pick up women from bars, sleep with them, and then (for one's own amusement) call them a fat disgusting pig before leaving the next morning. That's wrong. (The last part, anyway... the name-calling intended to hurt the woman).
But should it be illegal? No.
To that end, even though it is deceptive, unethical, and/or mistaken for parents to instill religious values in children... it should not be illegal to do so. I'm sure that many Christian fundamentalists are good and loving parents, even though they (perhaps by accident) teach their children falsehoods. I'd be willing to bet that many if not most of these children would be better off under the care of loving parents than as wards of the state. Even in some cases of extreme religiosity... (provided, of course, that no abuse transpires).
That's why law in liberal society is the way it is. It's not perfect. But it sets good reasonable limits on parental behavior.
Last edited:
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Hell no, a child shouldn't be shamed for doubting. It ought to be encouraged. That's what I was trying to say when bringing up the value of the Santa myth. It's a rite of passage to stop believing in Santa. In a roundabout way, it teaches skepticism through memetics.
I don’t have children, but I have often thought about this, anyways. I wouldn’t feel right about deceiving my kids like that. You are right about the lesson that it might teach, but I wouldn’t want that lesson to be caused by me; I should wish my children to have absolute confidence in my word, and feel that I might illustrate the lesson by the experience of their cohort. That ridiculous “Santa Claus” thing is one of the things about my culture about which I am most embarrassed.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Is truth a moral primitive to you?
Even though I value truth highly, I think an ethic can do without it. It is not the lie that is unethical but the possible consequences. We know that fire and brimstone religion can be traumatizing, so that lie is unethical because it causes harm. When avoiding harm is already in your moral compass, lying doesn't have to be there additionally.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Where exactly does a proper ethic start to value untruth over truth?
Heyo
Veteran Member
I don't think it can. I just said that untruth can be considered as amoral as long as it doesn't conflict with well being, equality or liberty.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Generally speaking, it is wrong to coerce (persuade an unwilling person by force or threats). But that doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to this general rule.
Moreover, it is, generally speaking, wrong to cause someone to believe a lie - let alone use force or threats to do so. That doesn't mean that there aren't exceptions to that general rule.
The answer to your question is also, generally speaking, that it is wrong, but there may be exceptions. This is on you because you outlined something general instead of giving a specific situation. When the question is sufficiently vague, the answer is necessarily vague.
Also, there is the question of just how bad is it? If we presume that you are a moral, responsible adult, then we might conclude that you only would've coerced a child into a believing a lie, because it was necessary. On the other hand, if you coerced a child into believing a lie, can we really conclude that you are a moral, responsible adult?
Finally, there's the question: can belief really be coerced? If you force a child to apologize to another child, does the child really feel sorry? Or is the child simply saying the words that he was forced to say? You may be able to force behavior, but can you ever really force belief?
Well, you wouldn't want the kid to know her or his father was Cardinal George Pell, for instance.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, that is in the end a kind of utilitarian morality. Now you just have to show with the objective correspondence theory of truth, that is real of the external world or if it doesn't really exist.
