> the biggest flaw i see in the planning of most prospective parents is that they fail to acknowledge their children will not be confined to their little garden of eden
That doesn't mean I don't believe my kids are going out to experience(and develop their own) moral codes. What it means is that as long as they are in my house, they will abide by my rules, as they will have to when they will abide by their landlord's rules. This is coming from a former kid who went over to his friend's houses to play FPS games, downloaded porn then erased the internet history, and visited anarchy websites teaching me how to build bombs and the like. I know what children are liable to do outside my range of vision.
The problem I have with your perspective is that it can be taken to any end and doesn't teach children that different people have their own values, or that parents have a duty to their children's wellbeing. It takes moral relativism to such an extreme that, given the possibility that your premises are true, I'd have to question whether parents are even necessary.
The reason that I would instill my values in my children is so they can enter a world where not everyone sees my moral codex as valid, thus they are given something to think about when they come to an age where they're forced to wonder whether I as a parent am being reasonable. They can choose to rebel, which they almost certainly will, and they can also choose to respect at least some of my values. In my experience, the kids who grew up in households whose parents let their kids do whatever they wanted turned out to be dependent little shitheads. I know of only one exception, and in that case the dad was such a negligent jerk that the kid had to raise himself; he turned out pretty well in the end, but that's not without the psychological drama of having shitty parenting and other mistakes he made because he had no moral guidance.
Sorry, but I'd rather be an actual dad and play some role in how a child gets raised. Allowing children, especially under the age of 12, to do whatever they want, is absurd.
That doesn't mean I don't believe my kids are going out to experience(and develop their own) moral codes. What it means is that as long as they are in my house, they will abide by my rules, as they will have to when they will abide by their landlord's rules. This is coming from a former kid who went over to his friend's houses to play FPS games, downloaded porn then erased the internet history, and visited anarchy websites teaching me how to build bombs and the like. I know what children are liable to do outside my range of vision.
The problem I have with your perspective is that it can be taken to any end and doesn't teach children that different people have their own values, or that parents have a duty to their children's wellbeing. It takes moral relativism to such an extreme that, given the possibility that your premises are true, I'd have to question whether parents are even necessary.
The reason that I would instill my values in my children is so they can enter a world where not everyone sees my moral codex as valid, thus they are given something to think about when they come to an age where they're forced to wonder whether I as a parent am being reasonable. They can choose to rebel, which they almost certainly will, and they can also choose to respect at least some of my values. In my experience, the kids who grew up in households whose parents let their kids do whatever they wanted turned out to be dependent little shitheads. I know of only one exception, and in that case the dad was such a negligent jerk that the kid had to raise himself; he turned out pretty well in the end, but that's not without the psychological drama of having shitty parenting and other mistakes he made because he had no moral guidance.
Sorry, but I'd rather be an actual dad and play some role in how a child gets raised. Allowing children, especially under the age of 12, to do whatever they want, is absurd.
> your perfect moral codex
I never made such a claim.