2 ms·
It's important to discuss alternatives, teach problem solving, etc. But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always
by klyrs 4y ago
It's important to discuss alternatives, teach problem solving, etc. But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you.
This isn't something that I brought up with my kid, btw. He led the conversation, he was asking honest and innocent questions. Shutting the door in his face loses the opportunity to discuss nuanced ethics when he's receptive to the conversation. If I drive, then it's just an abstract lecture.
- bumby 4y ago>But at the end of the day, teaching your kid to starve to death because stealing is always wrong is only going to erode their trust in you. This is a misinterpretation of my point, though. When I brought up the "defense of necessity", it was a direct acknowledgement that sometimes stealing is ok (or is at least, the more moral action). However, communicating vague heuristics based on shaky principles can set the ground for rationalization that leads to immoral behavior. When we read about abhorrent behavior (like in the featured article), it's more often than not the result of a line of rationalizations rooted in human biases rather than a principled moral stance. All I'm saying is the OP's guideline of "don't steal tools or a vehicle" isn't a particularly good first principle (for one, as the previous example shows, it could still result in starving).
- esoterica 4y agoNobody in America will starve to death unless they have a severe mental illness that prevents them from obtaining help that is otherwise accessible to them. The welfare system is not great, but it's not that bad. Food stamps and food banks are a thing.