The disciplinarian vs. the free-range parent
How morality shapes one’s parenting style
Often times, I hear from parents how they struggle to motivate their kids to do what they are supposed to do. Whether it’s the refusal to complete their homework or practice the instrument of choice (or lack thereof), I hear complaints from parents that their children are too consumed with other pursuits, like video games or social media.
Solutions to this problem usually involve a mixture of rewards and punishments, carrots and sticks. Depending on a parent’s style of parenting, they may lean one way over the other. For instance, suppose a disciplinarian sees their child disobeying their command to complete their homework. They may yell at the child, take away the source of their distraction, or perhaps even cause physical pain. On the other hand, the free-range parent seeing this may do nothing, or patiently wait for the child to come around.
Both of these styles are mistaken, as they both commit errors grounded into two false moral theories respectively: intrinsicism and subjectivism. The disciplinarian, whether they explicitly identify this premise or not, act on the intrinsicist premise that values are “just good” and no explanation or rationale is required. The child must simply “do”; any disobedience will be met with a range of punishments, all the way up to physical harm.
Instead of trying to convince their child (or even young adolescent) why they should complete their homework or practice their instrument, they are expected to complete these tasks regardless if they want to do them or not. It’s simply “just good” to do the things they are commanded to perform. The main problem with this approach to values is that it commits a main breach against the source of values: one’s choice. As Ayn Rand said, a value is “that which one acts to gain and/or keep.” A choice that’s motivated to avoid pain enforced by an authority really isn’t a choice at all. Over time, as a child is conditioned to obey, rather than to choose independently, they will lose their capacity for values (or perhaps never gain them, depending on the severity of punishments).
I have seen firsthand the result of that kind of parenting. Usually, children raised by this parenting style come from seriously religious homes. They typically rise into adulthood with neuroses and have little to no motivation for passions outside of “what they are supposed to do”, whether that is their dead-end job or education that’s expected of them. Young adults raised in that environment have to learn to think selfishly about the things they want and how the values they pursue must redound to their benefit. Often times, therapy is needed to address their guilt-ridden neuroses to reorient their focus on their interests, rather than pursuits they “have to do.”
On the other hand, free-range parents — while seemingly better than their meaner counter-part — also commit a moral breach, in the opposite direction. While they recognize the child needs to choose the values they pursue, they neglect cognitive requirements a child has in order to attain values as such. Children do need structure to figure out what it is they want. Values aren’t developed in a subjective vacuum. They still need to learn how to read, write, and think to develop pursuits that require a conceptual faculty. Sometimes, corrective measures against children for refusing these tasks is necessary. After all, there are deadlines to meet, tasks to be completed, and commitments to be fulfilled; one can’t stay a second grader forever. Neglecting cognitive requirements of the child— in favor of allowing the “freedom” of the child to do as they please—can be just as disastrous as commanding moral values.
In short, the disciplinarian demands compliance with protocols to achieve values, regardless of the interests of the child, whereas the free-range parent neglects an educational (and disciplinary) framework that provides the basis for interests as such. The former subordinates the needs of the child’s mind to reality, while the latter subordinates the demands set by reality to the whims of one’s consciousness. Neither of these approaches will aid a child’s cognitive development to independently pursue (or develop) rational values.
Now, what is the correct approach to values, both cognitively and morally? The right approach to foster independence in their children is for parents is to explain the importance of the values children are instructed to pursue, in accordance with their cognitive development. As the child grows up, they are more and more capable of reason, thereby more and more capable of persuasion. Rational cases can be made (quite easily, in fact) to learn how to read, write, and do arithmetic. Whenever an unpleasant experience affronts them, say exercising the effort to understand algebra, encourage the child to continue, as understanding this subject will lead to higher heights down the road. Showing the value these capabilities offer is a great way to motivate children to pursue these ends. Often times, once enough conceptual development has been acquired, they will explore and investigate for themselves subjects of their own interest.
Of course, early stages of development will many times require physical pain (in some form) to ensure proper behavior; two-year-olds can’t be reasoned with when having a tantrum in a supermarket, after all. But once they acquire a conceptual understanding of the world, explanations for action are paramount. Children, just like everyone else, need a reason to do something. Uniting the demands set by reality and one’s own biological needs, which includes the needs of one’s consciousness, is the correct way to instruct moral values to children (or to anyone, for that matter).
So why doesn’t Johnny want to do his homework? First look at the style of parenting the child experiences; it may tell the whole story.
