When most of the interview classes arrived at this point, many voices of protest spoke passionately against the idea of teaching from and through fear. They stressed that any parental figure felt and had the responsibility to teach children the difference between right and wrong. We all agreed that teaching such a thing would seem of the highest importance, and if children understood the difference between right and wrong, it would help them immeasurably to live better lives. Parents would do whatever they needed to do to make that happen, and this really was for the child's own good—the higher good at whatever the cost.
General assent followed, so I asked the question that followed naturally. We had established that parental figures taught the children in their care the difference between right and wrong, and we were all grown children. In that case, we would all know the difference between right and wrong. So I asked, "What is the difference between right and wrong?" Silence followed. Sometimes we would hear about specific instances of what was right and wrong: "It's wrong to hit people" for example. However, we had already seen that parents who punish make exceptions to that absolute whenever the parental figure felt the need. Besides, the idea of knowing the difference between right and wrong generally made it possible to always have a standard on which to base conduct, something to fall back on in any situation. Specific instances of right or wrong don't do that for us because something new will always come up. Besides, specifics don't make for understanding and for independent action. Generally when we discussed the idea further, we arrived at relativistic or situational definitions of the difference. It's something people decide for themselves based on cultural or societal circumstances. In other words, we all just make it up pretty much as we choose.
That being the case, what in the world do we teach children when we teach them right from wrong and why go through all that stress when it's ultimately rather arbitrary? Whatever else was true, we began without any working definition of such ideas. Mostly students seemed sort of unnerved by a lack of standard. If they didn't know, why did they feel they did? If they didn't know, what were they teaching the children entrusted to them?
We discussed the idea, and we came to some general if difficult ideas. The difference between right and wrong comes in the results of the thinking and the actions that come from that thinking. Right and wrong comes from intentions and results. This rather fit our working definition of the self:
The self exists as a conscious, independent entity which perceives the world, takes information from that perception, learns from that information, makes choices based on that learning, and acts on those choices. The self experiences the results of those choices, accepts the responsibility of those choices and results, and the process begins again.
That brought us back to the idea of consequences. Right and wrong show in their results. When things turn our well for all those involved, we have something shown to be right in intention and action. If it does not turn out well for all involved, although our intention was positive, our action shows it as wrong.[18] If we could intend to do the right thing and accurately anticipate the consequences of our actions, we might have a chance at choosing the right from the wrong. We see our intentions work causally on our actions and possible or inevitable results. If we understand that much, we might feel we can teach something to our children that they would find useful, think about our actions in terms of their outcomes on ourselves and others. We can say that this idea relates to the Golden Rule and Silver Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or do not do unto others what you would not have them to do to you.[19]
If we wish to teach the idea of the difference in right and wrong to the children in our mindful care, we all agreed that we would want to practice it. If we were to think about the Golden Rule with children, before we act in punishment, we would ask ourselves if we would welcome the action about to be taken. What would we feel about such an action? What would we learn from such an action?[20] We might find that such internal reflection and questioning suggests we find another way of responding to a child's mistakes. If we know we would not learn through punishment and the fear it produces, why would we believe that the children who trust us to offer unconditional positive regard would learn through punishment and fear? If we did not feel punishment and fear served our own good, a child would not as well.[21]
What influence would this unwanted punishment have on a developing, becoming self? What results would come from such a fear based and fear producing process?