Saturday, June 11, 2011

two equally foolish theses.

1. Being the best parents possible, and thereby doing the very best for your children, ensures or makes it highly likely that your children will grow up to be morally upright and have no major psychological issues.

False. Persons are not plants (pace Freud, Nietzsche, Skinner, et al). If God couldn’t do it for Adam, what in the hell makes you think that man is more capable?

2. Not being the best parents possible, and thereby doing the very best for your children, is inconsequential to whether or not your children will be morally upright and have no major psychological issues.

False. Just because persons aren’t plants, that doesn’t make them islands. Being a good parent might not be a sufficient condition for the child’s flourishing, but from this it does not follow that being a good parent isn’t necessary for it.

3 Comments:

Blogger Jonathan Charles Wright said...

You think that it's foolish to think it even _highly likely_ that good parenting begets good persons? Surely it's not ensured, but if there weren't a high likelihood of success why would "good parenting" techniques be recommended to parents? They count as good because they raise the probability!

10:47 AM  
Blogger Derek said...

raising probability, sure, but that's not the same thing as, nor does it make it *highly likely*. An off the cuff analogy: Surely it's more probable that you'll make a shot if you aim towards the hoop as opposed to aiming away from it. But however much aiming for the hoop raises the probability that you'll make the shot, raising the probability here isn't going to make it *highly likely* that you'll be a good basketball player. Aiming at the hoop on a regular basis is a necessary condition for being a good basketball player, but surely it's not sufficient.

"...if there weren't a high likelihood of success why would "good parenting" techniques be recommended to parents?"

Because not being a good parent *is* sufficient to cause psychological damage or negatively affect moral character.

I take it that not watering my plants is sufficient to destroy them, but it doesn't follow from this that *merely* watering them ensures or makes it highly likely that that they will survive.

~(p --> q) ^ (~p --> ~q)

[It's not the case that p entails q, but (and) not-p does entail not-q.]

11:47 AM  
Blogger Derek said...

Here's another way to put it: Suppose that factor F increases the probability of Q by 50% and not F decreases the probability of Q by 50%. It seems to me that two things follow from this:

a: Not-F ensures that the likelihood of Q is extremely low; it'd be 50% or lower.

b: F ensures that Q is 50% *more probable*; but Q on F alone is nowhere near *highly likely*.

So, I'm suggesting that

1. good parenting greatly increases the probability that one's child will be morally upright and have no major psychological issues.

and

2. that bad parenting makes it highly likely that one's child will not be morally upright or have major psychological issues.

*but*

3. good parenting does not make it *highly likely* that one's child will be morally upright or have no major psychological issues.

12:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.