What should we want?

In Den Beste's latest post, he responds to this question:

David-

First of all, I've enjoyed skimming around your blog- it's very interesting. I've also had Go dreams- at least half a dozen. At the moment of awakening, I would realize my mind was frenetically engaged in a viciously competitive game of Go. I was typically in trouble in the dream-games, and was intensely attempting a miraculous escape. The very intensity was a bit disturbing. I think I prefer happy and restful dreams which are filled with sunshine and attractive lasses. I've never remembered any dreams in which the Go stones came to life, as it were. I've actually put Go on the shelf for a while, as my dreams had me worried I was focusing too much attention to the game. Moderation in all things! Maybe the mental processes required for Go are simply conducive to replicating in dreams. Might be gist for a neurological study.

The "honorable play/game the referees" issue dogged me for some months. You are correct that I sought an answer to "What should I want for my child?" My answer swung wildly back and forth between "turn the other cheek" and "throw the money-changers out of the Temple." My entire life, I fought back when people played dirty with me, and my entire life I wondered if I was doing the right thing by fighting back. I was perplexed. I wanted to understand what was moral and ethical behavior for my child, and I wanted him to be as competitive as possible while exhibiting that behavior. In this respect, I did know what I wanted.

Den Beste was on the right track about my "looking for a universal answer" for all teams and all situations. I wondered if identical actions should always be considered either ethical or unethical- regardless of the circumstances? "Tactics" and "objectives" was a valuable take on this question. Idle speculation-- Maybe J-sus had separate objectives which guided H-s separate tactics? Maybe H- was exemplifying the lesson Clauswitz later wrote about? That would explain my confusion in trying to ascertain a universal answer out of J-sus advocation of two very different tactics. (Now, here's a perplexing thing for me-- You might be a Jew. [Orthodox?] Jews do not want G-d's name written out on a page. Yet a Jew does not consider J-sus to be G-d. So, how do I handle it? Just write the whole name, since J-sus is not G-d for a Jew?)

Den Beste also addressed the morality/legitimacy of "tit for tat" response. Somewhere amidst Jacksonianism, all the links, and "the foundation of our entire concept of law and punishment", tit for tat response began to look moral and legitimate.

It strikes me that you might be taking up for me in the face of a possible characterization of me as a shallow parent who is "trying to get what he wants." It actually feels pretty good to have you taking up for me! But, in the first place, I didn't take Den Beste's words that way. I think he was just trying to clearly say what he meant. It's pretty hard to do that, as you and I can both attest. In the second place, I'm not saying I'm a giant honking brain, but I know I'm not shallow, and no one who knows me thinks that(that I know of!). Even if I believed it had occurred I 'd be unconcerned about such a characterization. I appreciate Den Beste's thoughtful post, just like I appreciate your thoughtful post.

At the end of your post, I'm afraid I got lost in the whole "objectively right objective" and "change/cannot change" discussion. I'm suspect you are thinking of a Den Beste post which you have read and I have not- and I was unable to piece everything together in my mind. Anyway, thanks for visiting my blog, and thanks again for your thoughtful post, and congrats on having a cool blog! -Greg

I know that this is a bit beside your point, but this part by Den Beste annoyed me:

One way or another, you'll end up knowing your objectives. (If you still don't, you probably shouldn't let your kid get involved in sports at all.)

Can't kids develop their own objectives worth supporting (or at least permitting experimentation with)?

"Because my kid wants to" is a legitimate reason for a parent to let the kid participate in sports.

But that requires the parent to have the goal of "Letting my kid start to make his own decisions about what he wants to do." Every parent eventually has to start loosening their grip, but some parents have a hard time with it, and loosen too slowly or not at all. Some parents let loose too much, too easily. Some parents don't bother trying to grip at all.

"Loosening the grip" is a legitimate objective for a parent, but they need to understand that it is one of their objectives.

Of course, loosening the grip doesn't necessarily mean letting go entirely. As kids grow older, they should be allowed to make more and more decisions for themselves. But that means the parent has to first decide whether a given decision should be handled by the parent or delegated to the kid. It depends on the decision, especially on the consequences for choosing wrong. It also depends on the kid, especially on how mature the kid is.

Letting a 5 year old decide what flavor of ice cream cone to get at the mall is probably OK. But I would tend to think that it would be a parent decision whether to get a 5 year old involved in sports (though, of course, the kid's opinion would be a factor in the parent's decision).

It's going to be different if the kid is older. Letting a 14-year old decide they want to participate in sports is probably OK.

Letting a 14-year old decide they want to experiment with heroin pretty much isn't OK.

Letting a 14 year old decide that they want to get married probably isn't OK. It is legal in some states, I might mention, with formal parent approval. But should the parent sign on the dotted line just because the 14 year old wants them to, or should the parent consider the situation and make a real decision on whether to sign or not sign? I would tend to think it should be the latter. (And usually the answer would be "not sign".)

Gil asks: Can't kids develop their own objectives worth supporting (or at least permitting experimentation with)?

The answer is "sometimes yes". But Gil's question complements my point. It doesn't contradict it.

Greg,

First, thanks for your comments and sorry for taking so long to respond! I was very busy last week.

I don't think identical actions should always have the same ethical status regardless of circumstances. After all, firing a gun when there's an innocent person in front of you is unethical, whereas firing a gun when Osama bin Laden is in front of you is ethical. However, I do think there's an objective (universal) criteria for determining which actions are ethical, given the situation. This criteria, then, doesn't change, but it may give you different answers depending on the circumstances. With regards to Den Beste's post, I don't think he takes the concept of a universal ethical criteria seriously. I think he believes morality is a matter of taste, which is the point I was disagreeing with (and it's what I meant by an "objectively right" desire). I don't think morality is a matter of taste, and I think it's important to take the question seriously of what we should want, not just worry about what we do want.

I basically agree with Den Beste's conclusion, since I think I share his basic conception of what he'd want, given that situation (even though our justifications may be different). In other words, I think we should try to play "nice" as much as possible with people. But playing nice shouldn't mean that we let bad people get away with dirty tricks. If a basketball team is playing dirty and getting away with it, then by all means, play dirty back.

I actually wasn't defending you from Den Beste calling you a shallow parent. I didn't take his words to mean that either. I have no reason to consider you a shallow parent. My real point had nothing specifically to do with basketball or parenting per se, but rather just the notion of where morality comes from, and how we should decide what our goals are. I do, however, agree with Gil that most parents (including you) don't respect young people enough as independent human beings who should be able to have their own goals in life. This is not meant as an attack on you, but it is meant as a criticism.

By the way, mom's Jewish, and my dad's Catholic. I'm actually an atheist, myself. You can write "Jesus" however you want here. :)

Again, thanks for the comment. It's an interesting topic.

Here's my problem with Den Beste's response:

The problem with it is that he seem to treat parenting a child as a science project with clay, rather than as a relationship with another human being. Dealing with people imposes ethical constraints on us, so the right thing for us to do as parents is not always determined by what our personal objectives are.

I suspect that his decisions as a parent would often be good ones, because his objectives would probably be reasonable ones, and he would take his children's interests into account. But, he could be wrong. Not just wrong because he chose an ineffective strategy towards achieving his own objectives (which it would probably be, also), but ethically wrong because he violates the legitimate rights of another person whose (safe) wishes should be honored rather than thwarted (even if a parent doesn't think they are wise).

JESUS!

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I've been on a long vacation with family, and have been at the computer only sporadically, and for short periods of time. I'm taking things a bit out of order, but, you wrote-

"I think it's important to take the question seriously of what we should want, not just worry about what we do want."
and
"My real point...had to do with...the notion of where morality comes from, and how we should decide what our goals are."
and
"I don't think he(Den Beste) takes the concept of a universal ethical criteria seriously."

I think your key issues maybe can be separated. First issue is-

"...how we should decide what our goals are."

I don't see why you and Den Beste neccessarily disagree on this question. Reaching back in my memory of Den Beste's site, I seem to remember that he may have some logic quarrels with the notions of morality and ethical behavior. I've always meant to read those posts of his, but haven't gotten to them yet. Regardless, there has to be some common sense criteria upon which you and Den Beste agree. Certainly you both agree on the value of society and community, and you both agree one's actions ought to benefit one's society and one's community. Beyond that, you guys could quibble on the details. Your second key issue is-

"...the notion of where morality comes from...."

Here, for all I know, you and Den Beste may have a big disagreement. Off the top of my head(I'm too tired to look through U.S.S. Clueless right now) I'm unaware of you guys' opinions. You may argue that where morality comes from is critical to how we decide our goals, and the two cannot be separated. Fair enough. Could you elaborate?

On another front, you write

"I do, however, agree with Gil that most parents (including you) don't respect young people enough as independent human beings who should be able to have their own goals in life."

I don't know what I wrote to give you this idea. If you want to elaborate, you and I could discuss it further.

Its impossible to defend oneself against a charge such as this. It is like defending yourself against being called racist. You can cite piles of evidence that you are not racist, yet your accuser never has to abandon their opinion if they don't want to.

As an example, I'll playfully abuse Gil by accusing him of having unresolved problems with his father- which have led to unresolved problems with authority. No matter what Gil's situation, even if he never knew his father, I can still believe Gil has unresolved problems in that area. There's nothing he can do or say to talk me off my opinion.

To a specific point from Gil-

"...so the right thing for us to do as parents is not always determined by what our personal objectives are."

I disagree. The right thing for us to do is self-evidently determined by what our objectives are. Gil is pleading for parents to take their children's welfare into account when determining objectives. I can assure Gil that good parents do that as best as they possibly can from the moment their heart is stolen by their newborn infant. All of that looks different for every parent, but is nevertheless true.

I'll add that having a teenager equates to a 24/7 ongoing calculation as to how much independence to grant the child over a multitude of situations. The child makes damn sure you are calculating and recalculating this on a constant basis.

As to goals, its my definitive impression that any child can determine any goal for themselves, and a parent is damned foolish if they believe they can talk a child off of a sincerely and deeply held goal. Many a parent has learned how foolish they are by trying just such a thing. I think its a blessing when a child is determined to acheive goals for themself. Rather than fighting that, I thank God for it- as in "Thank you Jesus!" Then I usually add an additional prayer, as in "Jesus, please don't let this child's goal cost mucho dollars!" I vary the inflection of the Diety's name- from "Jesus" to "JEEZUS!"- depending on the situation. There's no universal inflection. Its very Clauswitzian.

OK. Bed for me. Vacation is over, and work calls on the morrow.

PS- Looking back over Den Beste's comment in this section, I would blatantly stiff-arm a 14 year old who wanted to get married, casting aside my flippant comments about kids and goals, and proving to Gil and David that I am a hard-headed control freak parent. This might lead to interesting parent-child discussions about the law and the legalities of marriage. The kid could start reading Andrew Sullivan's blog, and try out some of Sullivan's arguments on me. I guess I could try out some conservative arguments on him. As long as the discussion went on until his 18th birthday, we would be ok.

I know the real issue is age of consent and all that- but you try arguing that to a teenager who wants to get married. We'd be better off in a knock-down/drag-out Sullivan v Conservatives argument that went on for a couple of years!

Just for the record, I never made any judgements about what kind of a parent Greg is.

My comments were only about inferences from Den Beste's arguments.