|
||
|
Morality and Childrearing By Richard Kieninger A frequently expressed
philosophy concerning the rearing of children is that a parent or teacher should
not impose his morality or goals upon a child because this would allegedly
hamper the natural emergence of the child’s innate godliness. This concept
has been cyclically in vogue for thousands of years, and at least one
generation has to be ruined in the process of
disproving it. One of the more notorious experiments along these lines was conducted by an Indian potentate who gathered many
babies together into a spacious apartment in his castle and had them reared
without a word being spoken to them by the nurses and servants assigned to
care for them. In this way, he reasoned, the children would
not be contaminated by the errors and corruptions of the world, and
they would never be thwarted by punishment or harshness. Thereby the true
propensities of the pure, unfettered human soul would come forth in its
pristine perfection and demonstrate to the world the divine intention of the
Creator. The dumb, snarling, vicious animals who survived this noble
experiment after twenty years were totally amoral, asocial, unkempt and
hostile; and finally after attempts to civilize them and teach them language
failed, they were put to death as incorrigible
criminals. The civilizing of each
succeeding generation requires that the elders carefully transmit to the young
the best which has been evolved by the society.
There is no intrinsic morality in a child, because he must be able to adapt
without prejudice to the diverse cultures into which the Ego can incarnate.
There is no universal language, because any set of aural symbols will serve
to convey mental concepts. There is no intrinsic goodness in the behavior of
a child. The Egoic mechanism of conscience serves to make the child conform
to the social structure into which he has incarnated. A child must be carefully
imbued with morals and goals; otherwise he is not
likely to develop any on his own. The phrase, “and a little child shall lead
them,” does not refer to the theory that children should be allowed to evolve
their own social behavior patterns; for children are naturally cruel and
selfish among their peers if adults have not imposed higher standards and
rules of fair play. The parent who expects to be led to more
refined concepts by following spiritual mouthings
of babes is delivering himself into the hands of young tyrants. The burden
of responsibility rests upon adults to discern the best of social
organization to pass along to their offspring. It is not good enough that we
merely pass along the philosophy and behavior we inherited from our forefathers. It is incumbent upon us that we extract only
the better ways and discard the worst in order to uplift society. We as
parents cannot karmically escape our responsibility for how our children turn
out. I am appalled at the number
of educated people who proclaim that they cannot, in
fairness to their child’s rights of self-determination, impose their
goals upon the youngster. The parents admit that they do not know the
ultimate answers to the questions of existence, and so they feel it is better
that the child not be exposed to the suspect ideals, goals and prejudices of
perplexed parents. The new result of this “fairness” is that the child is deprived of standards upon which to anchor his own
morality. He has no goals to inspire him and carry him over the rough spots,
and he suspects that his parents do not care what he does or believes. When
the defiant youngster encounters an outsider who is strong and confident in
his philosophy, the youngster will probably follow him; and if the outsider
lives the “drug life,” then the undirected child will likely adopt it since
he has not been given good cause not to. The parent
who says with obvious liberality that he will not impose his religion upon
his child, since the child should have free will in choosing his own creed
after he has attained maturity, shouldn’t be surprised when his youngster
grows up without a religion or embraces some wild paganism. The parent who has firm
convictions in a philosophy which meets his needs
will serve his children well by imparting that philosophy to them. The sense
of legitimacy of a philosophy thus presented to the child encourages him to
try to embrace it and live up to it. The feelings of worth engendered in the
child by his adhering to an external discipline affords priceless attitudes
of purpose, direction, accomplishment and belonging. What the parents’
personal philosophical discipline may be is almost immaterial in achieving
this beneficial response in the child. Nevertheless, as Benjamin Franklin
advised, one should live his philosophy passionately and follow his belief
with integrity, but one should be willing to change his philosophy when
better ideas come along and then follow those with integrity. In short, “to
thine own self be true.” It is obvious that the
closer a parent’s philosophy runs to the ultimate reality of the universe the
more beneficial that philosophy will be to guide him and his child’s course
through life. The civilization which operates closest to
the Truth will continue to develop itself toward greater accuracy in
its view of life, and it can more effectively perceive any perversions in its
life style so as to better eliminate detractions to the Egoic advancement of
succeeding generations. Civilization must be taught to children. Whatever omissions the parent is
guilty of, he is indeed responsible for. If the
offspring whom the parent unleashes upon the world is a danger to it or a
drag upon society rather than of benefit, there are karmic repercussions that
accrue to the parents. To rear a child properly requires much effort. On the
other hand, to not instill character and purpose in one’s child on the
grounds that to do so imposes upon the free will of the child amounts to
avoidance of responsibility. |
|
|
|
|