Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing

[Willamena]

I've never seen any situation in which the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many.

Furthermore, if something causes major unhappiness for miniscule happiness, how can it be considered good? Understand that "happiness" doesn't necessarily mean "pleasure" or "comfort".

*fft* Obviously you never watched Star Trek: The Voyage Home.

 

[Riverwolf]

*fft* Obviously you never watched Star Trek: The Voyage Home.

It's one of my favorites, actually. It's also just a comedy romp, not a philosophical exploration.

Besides, I don't recall any instance of major unhappiness for small happiness in that film.

And see my edit if you meant Search For Spock.

 

[Willamena]

Besides, I don't recall any instance of major unhappiness for small happiness in that film.

Then you haven't truly been the Trekkie.

It's one of the least-liked films.

 

[Mister Emu]

I've never seen any situation in which the needs of the few or the one ultimately outweigh the needs of the many.

Putting on the hypothetical glasses: If a young girl were born immune to cancer and we could guarantee that all cancer would be cured forever if we vivisected her living body, it would still be entirely unethical to do so by force. Even though her short term misery would lead to relief for millions.

I know that is hypothetical, but if I can conceive of a situation in which the ethical foundation fails, I must disagree that it is necessarily so.

Furthermore, if something causes major unhappiness for miniscule happiness, how can it be considered good?

Because it is the right action. It would be ethical to kill two potential murderers with large deeply involved families rather than to let them murder a vagrant whose death would have zero mourners.

Understand that "happiness" doesn't necessarily mean "pleasure" or "comfort". If you like, you can substitute "happiness" for "health".

The classic term is eudaimonia.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then you haven't truly been the Trekkie.

It's one of the least-liked films.

Since when did I ever identify as a Trekkie?

Yes, the "needs of the many" quote is most well-known from Wrath of Khan, but I use that wording because I truly believe it.

 

[kashmir]

Who me? What? No that isn't the case. I said that wasn't the case, actually.

Do you mean 'Christianity' in the sense of basic Scripture? Then yes, duh. But that isn't my entire religious belief.
yikes.

yes, basic scripture.
Like with me, Jesus said love and don't hate.
that's what I do, not cause he said it though, I knew this from birth.
Jesus never said anything bad, if the world just did what he said...

but yes, when we begin to slice and dice it, it gets crazy and all sorts of religions come out of it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Putting on the hypothetical glasses: If a young girl were born immune to cancer and we could guarantee that all cancer would be cured forever if we vivisected her living body, it would still be entirely unethical to do so by force. Even though her short term misery would lead to relief for millions.

I know that is hypothetical, but if I can conceive of a situation in which the ethical foundation fails, I must disagree that it is necessarily so.

Understandable.

But imagine if the vast majority of the public were aware of just how much modern medical knowledge and technology came from horrible Nazi experimentation. In your hypothetical, if word got out that this were the ultimate cure for cancer, AND the girl were unwilling to give her life, then the resulting unhappiness would outweigh the happiness. I seriously doubt most cancer patients would want her young life to be forfeit for their sake.

On the other hand, in your hypothetical, there's no need to kill her by force. If harmless experimentation to utilize the properties that makes her immunity possible cannot yield the secret, keep her on note, and when she eventually dies naturally, her body can then be put to use to cure cancer. No unhappiness needed.

Besides, like I said in an edit, there's always an exception to every rule. In Kantian ethics, human life has inherent worth. I see that as superseding.

Because it is the right action. It would be ethical to kill two potential murderers with large deeply involved families rather than to let them murder a vagrant whose death would have zero mourners.

Things aren't "right" for their own sake.

The reason it's arguably ethical to kill those two murderers (I go back and forth on the death penalty, to be honest, but I'll argue in favor for it now), is because the unhappiness it causes thousands of others through fear can be mitigated by their removal.

Furthermore, as stated above, human life has worth in itself.

The classic term is eudaimonia.

Thanks. I'll try to remember that.

 

[Mister Emu]

I seriously doubt most cancer patients would want her young life to be forfeit for their sake.

Now... yes. In time,and I don't even think it would be all that much, it would just be one of those barbaric things we did to advance science to our enlightened descendants. And even if they didn't it wouldn't be because it was an unethical act, but because they let their emotions govern the logical result of the calculation.

I think the Nazi science is a great example... no one cares now what was based on Nazi science. It doesn't cause anyone distress when they benefit from something Nazis discovered and it shouldn't.

On the other hand, in your hypothetical, there's no need to kill her by force. If harmless experimentation to utilize the properties that makes her immunity possible cannot yield the secret, keep her on note, and when she eventually dies naturally, her body can then be put to use to cure cancer.

I specifically included a clause to show that it can't be after she dies to avoid this statement.

Things aren't "right" for their own sake.

Another assumption.

The reason it is a good act to kill the murderers is because it is an intrinsically good act to prevent the murder of an innocent.

 

[Nymphs]

I agree, but why is it ok to force everything else on the kids?
Child beauty pageants...
Plus, almost all women raise their daughters in a manor that their outer beauty is the most important thing they can think about.

No one said it was.

Don't know of anyone that was forced to go to church, end up having mental issues later in lifen.

I know several. I'm still dealing with the after effects of being raised in a restrictive religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

Now... yes. In time,and I don't even think it would be all that much, it would just be one of those barbaric things we did to advance science to our enlightened descendants. And even if they didn't it wouldn't be because it was an unethical act, but because they let their emotions govern the logical result of the calculation.

I think the Nazi science is a great example... no one cares now what was based on Nazi science. It doesn't cause anyone distress when they benefit from something Nazis discovered and it shouldn't.

But I'd wager it would cause a lot of distress if people were aware of it.

Heck, we owe pretty much our entire modern world to them. Computers, modern medicine, certain engineering sophistication, television... nuclear weapons.

I specifically included a clause to show that it can't be after she dies to avoid this statement.

I must have missed it.

In that case, it would cause massive unhappiness if it got out, making the act logically unethical.

Furthermore, it would cause the girl and her family an unhappiness that would likely outweigh any future happiness.

And if that's not enough, let's add another piece to the formula: one person's unhappiness for the sake of another person's happiness is unethical, as it is unfair. In other words, a bit of unhappiness for your future happiness is fine, but your permanent unhappiness for other peoples' happiness (at no cost to them) is not fine.

Logical calculations are capable of being adjusted and revised to fit new circumstances, for the record.

Another assumption.

The reason it is a good act to kill the murderers is because it is an intrinsically good act to prevent the murder of an innocent.

I think that's far more of an assumption, because it has no logical support. It's based purely on our social instincts.(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

It's good because it prevents unhappiness. On the other hand, that unhappiness can also be prevented without killing them, but just removing them.

 

[Mister Emu]

But I'd wager it would cause a lot of distress if people were aware of it.

It shouldn't. There is no reason for someone in a different culture and country to be distressed that 70 years ago Nazis were evil and developed some technology that lead to something you are currently using...

Anyways, I'd argue that it would elicit feigned outrage before a quick return to life as normal. No one will go crusading to eliminate computers because of ties to Nazism. No one will refuse to implement potential life saving hypothermia information because Nazis gathered it while experimenting on unwilling subjects...

In that case, it would cause massive unhappiness if it got out, making the act logically unethical.

Then people would subside and you'd have eons of a cancer-suffering free world...

And if that's not enough, let's add another piece to the formula: one person's unhappiness for the sake of another person's happiness is unethical, as it is unfair.

If you can only use it when involving choices by yourself about yourself, it isn't very practical as far as ethics systems go...

I think that's far more of an assumption, because it has no logical support.

Neither does your system. There is no logical imperative that should strive for humanity-wide eudaimonia.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing?


It is not brainwashing; it parents' duty to their children;they must do it. The parents have a right to teach their children everything they deem useful for their children.

Why deprive parents their rights?

If parents won't guide their children; they cannot even learn to speak a language.

Regards

 

[Nymphs]

Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing?

Depends on the religion and the parents.

It is not brainwashing; it parents' duty to their children;they must do it. The parents have a right to teach their children everything they deem useful for their children.

It's a parent's duty to have their child accept a religion they don't even fully understand.

 

[Riverwolf]

It shouldn't. There is no reason for someone in a different culture and country to be distressed that 70 years ago Nazis were evil and developed some technology that lead to something you are currently using...

Anyways, I'd argue that it would elicit feigned outrage before a quick return to life as normal. No one will go crusading to eliminate computers because of ties to Nazism. No one will refuse to implement potential life saving hypothermia information because Nazis gathered it while experimenting on unwilling subjects...

You'd be surprised.

I don't think it would cause such a thing, but it would cause a lot of people to become quite uncomfortable.

Thus, unnecessary unhappiness.

Then people would subside and you'd have eons of a cancer-suffering free world...

Maybe, but I doubt it.

If you can only use it when involving choices by yourself about yourself, it isn't very practical as far as ethics systems go...

No, it wouldn't be, and that's not at all what that part of the formula is doing. It's the exact opposite, in fact: it's basically saying that seeking personal happiness at other peoples' forced expense is not okay.

Neither does your system. There is no logical imperative that should strive for humanity-wide eudaimonia.

MOST amount of eudaimonia for the LEAST amount of... non-eudomania. It's impossible to completely eliminate unhappiness from the world.

Besides, it's far better to have at least some kind of system that's capable of calculating whether something is good or not, and being flexible to varying situations, than to have an inflexible system of set-in-stone rules based on a specific situation that may or may not apply to others.

The system I'm using (which, by the way, is a bit over a hundred years old, and so it's absolutely NOT mine) uses logic explicitly.

 

[Mister Emu]

You'd be surprised.

Well then I would be genuinely surprised.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Even if not, is any amount hand-wringing moralistic guilt comparable to the suffering brought on by cancer?

that's not at all what that part of the formula is doing.

That is exactly what its doing... if you can't use the system to determine whether to choose between two acts that will cause varying amounts of unhappiness in some vs others(promoting one person or group's happiness at the expense of others), you can't discuss moral dilemmas at all using it.

MOST amount of eudaimonia for the LEAST amount of... non-eudomania. It's impossible to completely eliminate unhappiness from the world.

All well and good, still not logically imperative. In other words, you could not, solely using logic, convince someone who held the antithetical position(ethical actions bring about the most suffering for the least eudaimonia) to change their mind.

Besides, it's far better to have at least some kind of system that's capable of calculating whether something is good or not, and being flexible to varying situations, than to have an inflexible system of set-in-stone rules based on a specific situation that may or may not apply to others.

Disagree, I far more tend towards Kantian categorical imperatives as opposed to utilitarianistic ideation.

Though I tend to look at evil and good as more medical, sick and healthy... and on my more detached days imagined as code.

The system I'm using (which, by the way, is a bit over a hundred years old, and so it's absolutely NOT mine) uses logic explicitly.

It uses logic, it is not based in logic...

 

[1137]

Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing?


It is not brainwashing; it parents' duty to their children;they must do it. The parents have a right to teach their children everything they deem useful for their children.

Why deprive parents their rights?

If parents won't guide their children; they cannot even learn to speak a language.

Regards

That's an insanely slippery slope.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well then I would be genuinely surprised.

Even if not, is any amount hand-wringing moralistic guilt comparable to the suffering brought on by cancer?

Depends on the level of empathy for the girl, and how much she and her family suffered.

Of course, your hypothetical also carries with it lots of assumptions that don't really apply in any realistic sense.

That is exactly what its doing... if you can't use the system to determine whether to choose between two acts that will cause varying amounts of unhappiness in some vs others(promoting one person or group's happiness at the expense of others), you can't discuss moral dilemmas at all using it.

That's exactly what it does. It compares one person's happiness to that of others.

All well and good, still not logically imperative. In other words, you could not, solely using logic, convince someone who held the antithetical position(ethical actions bring about the most suffering for the least eudaimonia) to change their mind.

Since when has logic been any good at changing peoples' minds, anyway?

Disagree, I far more tend towards Kantian categorical imperatives as opposed to utilitarianistic ideation.

Though I tend to look at evil and good as more medical, sick and healthy... and on my more detached days imagined as code.

I generally do, as well, and I don't discount Kantian ethics, either. I see no reason why the concept of the inherent worth of humanity must be in competition with utilitarian calculation. The inherent worth of human life comes from our inherent social instincts; we instinctively know that killing other people is a bad thing, even if some slip in a moment of rage, because we're a social species. (There are some people who lack that instinct, of course; they suffer from a disorder.)

Human life takes precedence above all, and moreso the life of a child. It may be illogical, but it's what makes us human; going against it would cost us our humanity. Thing is, though, it's not illogical, nor inherently antithetical to calculation (in fact, it is, itself, a calculation of sorts). The wellbeing of children takes precedence over the wellbeing of adults, and so any happiness that can be bought for adults with the life of a child is not worth the price; the act remains unethical. We may use medicines developed from Nazi human experimentation, but that doesn't make what they did okay.

Ethical calculation need not be devoid of human empathy. And in either case, my original point that religion is not necessary to have a strong moral code remains.

...I do feel I should point out that I only know about these two ethical philosophies in the first place from one Junior College class I took on Ethics... many years ago... and while I found the abstracts quite fascinating, I did not pass that class. (I don't even remember the names tied to utilitarian philosophy.)

So, it's entirely possible I'm misusing/misunderstanding both philosophies entirely.

It uses logic, it is not based in logic...

Explain to me the difference, because I don't see any relevant distinction. Use logic itself, not an analogy, if you would.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why making your children follow your religion truly is brainwashing?


It is not brainwashing; it parents' duty to their children;they must do it. The parents have a right to teach their children everything they deem useful for their children.

Why deprive parents their rights?

If parents won't guide their children; they cannot even learn to speak a language.

Regards

If the parent should have freedom of religion, why shouldn't the child?

If the child doesn't have freedom of religion, then what justification do we have to grant it to the parent?

Once we deny the child his freedom of religion - as we must if we say that it's okay to force the child into a particular religion - we can no longer appeal to the principle that freedom of religion is a universal human right, since we had to reject this to allow for religious indoctrination in the first place.

 

[Will Campbell]

Thought I would pop back in with this little gem:

I often hear people say that teaching (or forcing) religion to (or down the throats of) children is brainwashing, and all of a sudden you have a rumble on your hands. People see brainwashing as a term suggesting that they are doing something evil and harmful, and perhaps brainwashing is not the right term. However, it simply would seem unethical and questionable to push religion (ANY religion) onto children.

The problem with forcing such a solid system upon a child is a psychological one. One of the main reasons is the connection that children have with their primary caregiver. So much rides on this relationship throughout one's entire life, it affects all relationships and one's functioning in the world. If a child sees, from an extremely young age, that their shared belief in their parents religion is so important, it may stifle future questioning out of the fear of losing that connection. Of course the reverse is also true, during adolescence when a teen rebels against their parents and becomes more influenced by their peers, it may cause extreme rifts in families if the child chooses to use this fundamental connection against the parent (for example, LaVeyan Satanism make most of its profit off of this rebellion). It can, and often does, lead to regret on one side or the other.

This is hardly the only problem. Children cannot even think abstractly or question themselves and what they know until around the age of twelve. Think of, on average, how ingrained the family religion is by age twelve. I can see why families may want this, they believe they are correct and want their kids to be locked into the religion. I don't see the hate for the term "brainwashing" here, it sounds about as unethical as the process to me.

Now, many people argue that it has to do with morals and community. Well, I do not see why eternal and supernatural punishment is needed except in the case of lazy parenting. A simply understanding of punishment will suffice just as well. Condition your kids, use reinforcement and punishment and they will learn not to do what is "wrong" simply because there is punishment. There is not need to say "now Suzie, remember if you lie to mommy and daddy you will suffer for eternity", again it seems rather unethical.

So, I guess it comes down to a choice. What seems ethical is to try and raise your child in a realistic and open world, sharing your ideas with them as they enter adolescence and allowing them to reflect and make the decision for themselves. The only reason to do otherwise is to lock in a child's mind with the religion you wish them to have, but if that is the route you choose stop getting ***** when people use the terms "brainwashing" or "unethical".

I'm personally acquainted with two families who selected religious schooling for their kids. One family....Pre school through 2nd grade, Mt.Pisgah Baptist. Middle years and HS 3-12 Mt. Paren Christian school in Kennesaw GA. More than likely the college years will be in Liberty Baptist or some other 4 year college which includes bible before intelligence. My question is: What kind of chance do those kids have of ever making up their own minds about anything?

 

[ZooGirl02]

Personally, I do not believe that teaching your child your own religion is brainwashing. I also do not believe that making your child follow your religion is brainwashing. But then again, that's probably because as a Catholic I would be obligated to teach my child my religion. I don't have children at this time though.