- Joined
- Nov 18, 2016
- Messages
- 47,463
- Reaction score
- 24,711
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Psychology, sociology, and anthropology are all separate from a basic understanding of morality. In fact, a basic understanding of morality is actually necessary in order to have any coherent understanding of any of those.
Not as much as you may think. The line can get quite blurred frequently. For example, up to about the 1960s, it was believed that physical, corporal punishment of children was crucial to raising well-disciplined and respectful children. "You have to break their will", was sometimes what was said. It was based on the Biblical understanding of "spare the rod, spoil the child". I remember meeting one lady who recounted her childhood when she and her siblings would be playing peacefully in their rooms together, and their mom would sometimes just show up and beat the tar out of them, leaving them all crying. When they were older, they asked her why she did that. She told them she did it because she was worried that if she didn't do it, they would grow up undisciplined and spoiled. But there were a series of landmark studies in the 1960s which showed that while corporal punishment DID get the bad behavior to stop immediately, it didn't teach the kid WHY it was wrong. They would just learn to do it when no one was looking. It didn't seem to teach much respect for the parent- actually quite the opposite: resentment and even outright hatred as they grew up. It also taught them the important lesson that might makes right, and it was noted that it was correlated with bullying behavior in school and, later in life, dysfunctional relationships at work and domestic abuse of their spouse (what better lesson in "might makes right" than some big grown-up beating you up as a little kid into submission, right?). There was also higher incidences of anger management issues, anxiety, and depression. They also showed that there were far better methods of discipline without such adverse side effects. These studies really started to seep into the popular culture, and the incidence of child abuse declined markedly over the next few decades.
But I was talking to a child psychologist recently who told me that the incidence of corporal punishment and child abuse is still remarkably high. Interestingly, she said, when she educates most parents about the problems with this kind of child-rearing, and teaches them more effective and less dangerous techniques of teaching children, they are open to the idea and learn. The ones she really has trouble with, however, were the religious ones who don't believe that the Bible could be wrong, and continue to quote "spare the rod, spoil the child" type quotes as they keep beating their children.
Now I don't know how you feel about this particular issue. I can tell you we raised our kid without ever raising a hand on him, and I am pretty proud of the kind of boy he is growing up to be. But maybe further studies will show that the Bible may have been right after all on this. But regardless, I am not sure how this question, or other questions of whether drunks should be allowed to drive, or whether women should be allowed to vote, etc.., can be decided better by thinking about how nature has laws and Newton's laws govern the orbit of the planets. This is not how we make decisions about what to do. We make decisions by doing things, seeing and studying their consequences, and then modifying our behavior to match- whether that's a child learning not to touch the flame on a candle, or us as a society learning that we shouldn't be letting drunk drivers on the road.