----- Original Message ----- From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 9:42 AM Subject: Re: Starship Trooper
> > I didn't say the ideas in the book were all good :-) But the ideas of > personal responsibility and shame for wrong-doing are certainly needed in > the world today, even if I think they should be handled differently than > Heinlein handles them. I'd strongly agree/strongly disagree with that last statement. I certainly think that personal responsibility is a good thing. I think that Peter Gomes discussion of it is particularly worthwhile discussing the need to accept both corporate and personal responsibility. But, shame is a bad tool for accepting personal responsibility. Shame is a devaluation of self, based on the perceptions of others. Incestuous families are typically shame based families, for example. The victim will shield the perpetrator in order to keep the family from being shamed. Indeed, while shame can result in acceptable behavior, in personal terms, it is very different from guilt and responsibility. Guilt is much better than shame. Guilt is directly accepting responsibilities for one's own actions. A reasonable understanding of both corporate and personal responsibility can allow for the guilt of the community and the guilt of the individual. Guilt allows one to accept fault for actions without requiring self-degradation. Another example of the difficulty with shame as a basis of morality just hit Yahoo News. Honor killing of women who have been raped is an example of extreme problems that can result when shame guides behavior. > My wife is a gradeschool music teacher. She regularly sees kids who have > done something bad enough to get their parent(s) called, and these kids are > told that their parent(s) are coming to the school and they don't care. The > parent(s) tell them that they are in *big* trouble, and the kids don't care. > They don't take responsibility for what they did, they don't feel any > shame for their wrongdoing, and they don't care what type of punishment > their parent(s) plan to apply. And according to some of the teachers that > have been in the district for a long time (>20 years), it gets worse every > year. I worked hard to make sure my kids felt no shame for their wrongdoing. They were still loved, they still were special creatures of God. Yet, they were responsible for the wrongs they had done. So, they had logical consequences to their inappropriate behavior. This often involved apologizing and acknowledging responsibility for their actions, especially if it involved harming people outside of the family. They were told what was expected of them with regards to their behavior, and the consequences of inappropriate behavior. Its true that things did not work perfectly. My son doesn't work as hard at school work as he probably should. But, all three (16-22) give every indication that they do think about the impact their actions have on others. Further, studies of young offenders under incarceration indicates that they are very shame filled. They have a very low self esteem; its almost as if they consider themselves permanently ruined at 16. I'd argue that a kid taught Heinlein's way would mainly think about the likelihood of getting caught and punished vs. getting away with things. If its a net plus, then the action is worthwhile. Indeed, IMHO libertarianism is based on selfishness, which means that no actions that benefit oneself are bad. I realize that DB wants to change that, but I think Rand is the goddess of libertarians for a good reason. > This was the type of situation Heinlein was predicting (and was probably > already starting to see at the time he wrote the book) and he simply put > forth his opinion on how to take care of that situation. People have been writing about a lack of responsibility in the younger generation for thousands of years. :-) >I agree with his > opinion that lack of personal responsibility, lack of shame and even, so > some extent, lack of fear of punishment are bad things, although I don't > necessarily agree with all of his suggestions for dealing with those > problems. But, don't you remember? He said it was wrong to both punish and comfort an animal, and thus it was wrong to do the same with a human. That is absolutely false. The way to raise children is to love them unconditionally, yet hold high standards for their behavior. > But still, getting back to my original point, these issues, the > real heart of the story, were only touched on as parody or were completely > ignored in the movie. Sure, but since he dealt with them in such a bad manner, that IMHO, the parody was superior. Indeed, my wife saw a lot of out of control kids of parents who had Heinlein's view of teaching personal responsibility. Parenting requires a balance of giving freedom and support and firm boundaries all at once. Heinlein say a one dimensional solution. > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Basically, that OSC handled personal responsibility in a superior fashion to Heinlein. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
