Obedience as a virtue

[TechWife]

On a related note, a local church is doing a parenting series. The sign said "there are no rebellious teens, only toddlers who were never taught to obey". I wonder, at what point are a person's faults NOT because of their upbringing? If my 35yo son robs a bank, is it because I never spanked him??

This parenting philosophy is so dangerous! It creates unhealthy family environments. I am sorry to hear this type of thing is still being taught. I was hopeful it had gone out of fashion.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think people, often mothers because dads don't explain every little thing as much as women tend to do, make things more complicated when they don't always have to be. Humans are animals. We respond to a lot of stimuli similarly to animals, and don't always have to have long explanations about every little thing we do or avoid doing. There is a time for a quick command and expecting action, and a time for a softer sell. Just ask a manager in a store which employee she/he prefers; the one who needs to be talked into doing something with a long explanation, or the one who can do what is asked quickly and effectively. 

 

True.  I do sometimes think I'd like to go back in time and be less nice.  LOL   My husband feels far less stressed about the kids because they don't come to him with their problems and complaints.  They come to me.  And I can't just tell them to stuff it.  I don't know why. 

[Lady Florida.]

Okie dokie

 

I reread my post and realized it sounds like I was trying to say that your kid has an underlying issue. That's not what I meant, and I feel like I've "known" you long enough to know if that was the case, you'd be on top of it anyway. I just meant that people shouldn't think kids who will run out into the street or whatever do so because of lax parenting. 

[HRAAB]

Obedience is not in 'my' book of virtues.  I am big on virtues: compassion, fortitude, generosity, humility, patience, diligence.  Obedience is not on my list.  

[ktgrok]

Ok, but this is just general living, teaching, modeling, etc. in my mind.  This isn't some sort of systematic here is an M&M because you flushed the toilet on your own.  Here is another M&M because you used a fork properly.  How is this like training a dog? 

 

It is operant conditioning. Behavior is rewarded, so more likely to happen again. Reward may be a hug, a smile, a high five, a "congrats!" a trip to the movies, a sticker on a chart, or a heartfelt "thank you". And not doing the behavior may have consequences like having to stop what you are doing to go back and flush, not getting dessert because you were rude to mom about dinner, not being able to play because you have to finish the work you dawdled on, etc. Same as dog training, just different choices in reinforcement. 

 

Although, I totally did give my daughter a chocolate chip today for each section of her math she did with a good attitude. Worked like a charm, and got her out of the 'whine/pout/complain" cycle she was stuck in. 

[Guest]

I reread my post and realized it sounds like I was trying to say that your kid has an underlying issue. That's not what I meant, and I feel like I've "known" you long enough to know if that was the case, you'd be on top of it anyway. I just meant that people shouldn't think kids who will run out into the street or whatever do so because of lax parenting.

No thang... You quoted me so it seemed like you wanted me to respond, but I had no thoughts lol so I just wanted to say okie, like "I hear you.".

 

"Kids don't run out in the street because of lax parenting." Don't I know it!!!

 

As it happens, I do have kids with underlying issues :) navigating them is sometimes the stone-cold pits.

 

---------

 

Separately, I think we collectively have a reaction against people talking about obedience because for one thing, like sparky said (and I agree SOSO MUCH) we really don't have as much control over who or what our kids are.

 

And secondly there's still this huge continent of "back in my day-" saying people acting like all you have to do to get kids to behave is back hand them here and there.

 

Soooooo many of us want nothing to do with that, at all, so anything with those connotations is immediately gross. So we are like, "nah" for obedience, but we are all (sitting around talking about it) very much invested in our kids growing up upright, knowing what to do and when to do it.

Edited August 29, 2016 by OKBud

[SKL]

I don't understand comparing childrearing to dog training.  A dog doesn't have to go out in the world and make hard choices, handle job interviews, choose a life partner, plan for retirement.  A dog who doesn't obey perfectly will be physically restrained for life, for its own good.

 

I guess maybe you can compare a tot to a dog that way, but personally I'm raising adults, not toddlers, and not pets.

 

Did I use stupid little rewards when my kids were tots, yes, sometimes.  I don't necessarily agree that it always worked.  The human mind is very complex, even when young.  I can remember some run-ins with my 3yo that would not have happened with a dog, LOL.

[SKL]

There is a time for a quick command and expecting action, and a time for a softer sell. Just ask a manager in a store which employee she/he prefers; the one who needs to be talked into doing something with a long explanation, or the one who can do what is asked quickly and effectively. 

 

I don't know though.  I think a good manager figures out each employee's learning style and makes the most of it.  In my first job as a controller, I was younger than all the people I worked with, but I still figured this out.  I had one person who just wanted to know what to do (not why), and another similarly placed employee who needed the logic in order to understand what was wanted.  Both did a good job, but the latter was the one who was always open to learning new responsibilities.  She was the more enjoyable person to work with, even though it took some time to get her going on a task.

 

A good manager is building a team that will follow him/her to the next level.  At some point that means the people below us can figure things out for themselves.  I don't want a team that can only function if I tell them exactly what to do.

 

And my household is a team.  I want my kids to be able to contribute to the planning as well as the executing - even if that means the final product isn't exactly what I had in mind.

[Bluegoat]

I think to answer this we have to know what obedience is.

 

I would tend to say that it is aknowledging and willing one's own submission to legitimate authority.  So closely related to justice, and it involves being able to discern legitimate authority, levels of authority, and that sort of thing.  And, being able to make oneself overcome ego or self-centeredness to be carry out obedience when necessary.

 

In children though - well, they will not always have the ability to live it out in the most full way - it requires a certain level of mental development, development of the will, and even practice and habit.

 

So for kids, what it looks like won't always be the same as how it looks in an adult.  Sometimes the parent or other adult will have to help with those aspects, and help, as they grow, to develop new facets.

 

I do think it's an important virtue.  Maybe especially for living in a democratic society, where to a significant degree we depend on people of their own accord submitting themselves to the political process - it's not a tyranny where we just treat adults like children to be made to submit through force or threats, instead people have to have the self-control and sense of themselves as part of an organic social order for it to work smoothly.

 

I think we tend to emphasize the discerning while severely under-emphasizing the submission and also the building up of the will.  It seems to me that an inability to really understand obedience can be detrimental in many aspects of life, for example, it makes it very hard to learn from even a good teacher.

 

And I think that people who do not have the skill of obedience are often not very effective, and maybe even worse, dangerous, when they are put in the position of the person to whom obedience is owed.

[MercyA]

Obedience is not in and of itself a virtue.

 

Obedience to something can be a virtue or a vice. Obeying my desire to sit on my phone in bed all day because I don't feel well is not virtuous. Overcoming that desire to obey what I consider to be moral imperatives (in whatever form that comes for people) is a virtue, IMO. I do understand many people don't frame it this way.

 

That's a good point. Romans 6:12 comes to mind: "Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires." A lot depends on whom (or what) we are obeying and why.

[Murphy101]

From a RCC pov, obedience is not a virtue.

 

However, also in RCC tradition, it is one of the 3 Evangelical Counsels:

 

Voluntary Poverty

Perpetual Chasitity

Perfect Obediance

 

These are most often associated with religious vocations because it requires complete lifetime devotion to Christ to practice them. These are not laws commanded, but they are especially recommended by Christ repeatedly in His exhortations of how to follow him and who seems to have an easier time doing so.

 

Think comparing the rich man who walked away to the poor woman who gave her only coin.

 

Regardless, Obediance is not blind and it is only due under just authority.

 

Children are commanded by God's law to HONOR their parents. Honor and obedience are not the same thing, though they tend to coexist in healthy relationships.

 

I've mentioned on other threads my peeve of Christians demanding perfect and first time obedience. Good luck doing better than God.🙄

[regentrude]

I've mentioned on other threads my peeve of Christians demanding perfect and first time obedience. Good luck doing better than God.🙄

 

Right! Only two kids, and only one simple rule... 

[nd293]

I don't think obedience is a virtue. I think obedience means unthinking followers and I dont ever want my kids not to think.

 

When I'm upset that my kids don't listen to me it's not because they didn't 'obey' me, it's because they were unwilling to act cooperatively in the family situation.

[Bluegoat]

I don't think obedience is a virtue. I think obedience means unthinking followers and I dont ever want my kids not to think.

 

When I'm upset that my kids don't listen to me it's not because they didn't 'obey' me, it's because they were unwilling to act cooperatively in the family situation.

 

Is that really different?  I can easily envision someone being handed  off to the gulag, not because they failed to obey authority, but because they were unwilling to act cooperatively with society.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Bluegoat

[EMS83]

Haven't read replies, so I'm just responding to the OP.  Yes, it's very important to me, but I wouldn't be horrified to learn that it wasn't to someone else.  I think often the connotation of obedience is more like that of a robot than an autonomous individual choosing to cooperate with an authority.  But to me, obedience is the latter, not the former.  It is inherently a choice, and therefore cannot be robot-like.

 

So under my definition, I'd say obedience is a virtue.  We do practice instant obedience here, even just a yes ma'am as they start moving is fine--any sign that they are using their will to obey.  But I also want them questioning, critically thinking, so I try to encourage that alongside obedience--explaining the why behind the direction (afterward), making real life correlations.  And I limit the imperatives to issues of safety and order, so they can also practice choosing right because it's right, and not out of fear.

 

Adults need a healthy sense of obedience, as well.  I don't imagine arguing with our boss or a police officer would go over very well.  We just don't have such direct, ever-present, visible authorities in our lives.  As a Christian I believe we have God's ever present invisible authority, but I also believe in free will and mercy.  But I believe He desires that obedience, and blesses it.  I don't imagine God slapping us on the wrist every time we mess up.  I do believe in natural consequences on all levels.

 

I guess that's my nutshell, for perusal.  I'm sure I could spin it out more, as it deserves a deeper treatment and more caveats, but I don't have the brain power tonight.  :)

 

 

[eternalsummer]

I think obedience in young kids is hugely important. When I say "stop" to a three year old it's not mindless brainwashing, it's "don't touch the hot stove...run into the street...poke your sister's eye out" kind of stuff. But, imho, a three year old get the stop first, explanation later.

 

I also think it's an important first step to humility. When we obey parents as children, we learn to put our opinions away for and do what's asked. While others may disagree, I think that's an important trait for life. It's critical to employment, obeying laws, submitting to public authority (flight attendants, ushers, etc.). It's crucial to learning (and why we as classical educators start with rote and move up to debate and opinions later). I think not being too wise in oneself and listening to others can start with healthy obedience.

 

Now, I'm not talking wacky stuff, brain washing, or the crazy connotations "obedience" can have here in parental debates. But, to eschew "obedience" because people have abused it is wrong to me. I have wonderful, thoughtful, healthy relationships with my teens who were taught to obey as toddlers. Now that they're older, it's the time to discuss first, and then obey (curfew, clothing, driving rules, who hangs out at my house when I'm gone, etc.).

 

And fwiw, I love the whole idea of civil disobedience when necessary. I'm good with debate and open to changing ideas. But I don't think obedience is evil or unkind if your motives are right.

 

I don't insist on obedience as a virtue and most of my kids have been the sort that stop when I say stop.  For the one(s) that don't - one very reliably wouldn't, if he were running into the street - I doubt any amount of training, short of extreme abuse, would have enabled that response in him.  He just wasn't built that way as a small child, and keeping him safe meant not training him to obey instantly but instead keeping him from dangerous situations until he had matured enough to have some impulse control (and to understand the reasons for not doing what I told him not to do, which helped with the impulse control).

 

So I guess I'm saying, you can keep your kids safe without explicitly training blind obedience.

 

Regarding whether it's an important trait for life - I was not trained in any sort of obedience as a kid, and I have successfully held jobs, have never been in trouble with the law, and am polite to stewardesses on airplanes. :)

 

Equating the two things - training obedience with socially responsible adulthood - is a fallacy.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I actually think obedience is the exact opposite of a virtue; I admire people who question and challenge. I think there's a difference between obedience and self-control; many people mistake the two .

Very good point.

[eternalsummer]

Why not? Positive reinforcement, repetition to reinforce learning, simple commands and rewards are highly effective. 

 

Because they are not dogs, they are people.  Small people, but people.  

[eternalsummer]

Ok, but this is just general living, teaching, modeling, etc. in my mind.  This isn't some sort of systematic here is an M&M because you flushed the toilet on your own.  Here is another M&M because you used a fork properly.  How is this like training a dog? 

 you and I are on the same wavelength here

 

we've never done rewards or a system or anything like that for basic life skills.

 

for instance, I've discovered that for my kids, once they're about 1.5 or 2, if you take the diapers and bottoms off for a week and show them how to use the potty, they learn how to use it.  Forks are generally less messy (and adults use them) and therefore preferable to fingers once the kids reach a certain age - around 3-5?  etc.

[Zinnia]

It has made our life a lot easier to train my children towards obedience.

 

These threads make me question my sanity sometimes. I had a child that ran away anytime his feet hit the ground from age 10 months until 3.5 years. Three long years. Finally getting obedience was life changing, and it was worth the effort.

 

My kids regularly shout "no" over the most mundane things (doing a chore they have done on a rotation for 5+ years.) Sometimes they refuse to sit in a chair for seemingly no reason. Or fight in the grocery store. Or annoy each other after being told to stop. I do not put these outbursts up there with civil disobedience. They do make our house much less peaceful, though.

[eternalsummer]

I agree that obedient children are more convenient for parents.

 

But then, an obedient wife is more convenient for her husband.

 

I had the same kid that ran away from 10 months to 3.5 years.  I did not put him in a situation where running away would be dangerous, ever.  He grew out of it (possibly around the same time he would have "learned to obey" if I'd been training it all that time).

[Zinnia]

I suppose I see my ability to go along with authority as a blessing in my life, too.

 

I do not understand people that forever question authority--my mother is one, my brother, and two of my kids. Also (of course), many, many homeschoolers. None of these people who are very close to me seem like they are better off for this. It seems as if their life would be infinitely better for learning to obey in many instances. Fighting "the man" at every step seems a horrible way to live..

Edited August 30, 2016 by Zinnia

[Zinnia]

And thank god some of don't unless it's really, really important.

[Murphy101]

I agree that obedient children are more convenient for parents.

 

But then, an obedient wife is more convenient for her husband.

 

I had the same kid that ran away from 10 months to 3.5 years. I did not put him in a situation where running away would be dangerous, ever. He grew out of it (possibly around the same time he would have "learned to obey" if I'd been training it all that time).

Children that trust their parent's authority is a hard won time invested parental boon.

 

Obedience is not all that convenient as it requires constant commanding and giving direction. Commanding and giving direction is tedious.

[Guest]

I agree that obedient children are more convenient for parents.

 

But then, an obedient wife is more convenient for her husband.

 

I had the same kid that ran away from 10 months to 3.5 years. I did not put him in a situation where running away would be dangerous, ever. He grew out of it (possibly around the same time he would have "learned to obey" if I'd been training it all that time).

Fallacious. Parent to child and spouse to spouse are (self-evidently) fundamentally different relationships.

 

And at what point do you draw the line? I'm literally laughing at this "3.5 years old" business. Lucky lucky lucky ducky ducky duckies.

[Murphy101]

I never purposely put my kids in genuine danger. I don't know any decent parents that do.

 

But I swear danger could find my kids in a safe room.

 

I think that any human generation has survived long enough to create the next one is mostly pure dumb luck.

[Guest]

I think to answer this we have to know what obedience is.

 

I would tend to say that it is aknowledging and willing one's own submission to legitimate authority.  So closely related to justice, and it involves being able to discern legitimate authority, levels of authority, and that sort of thing.  And, being able to make oneself overcome ego or self-centeredness to be carry out obedience when necessary.

 

In children though - well, they will not always have the ability to live it out in the most full way - it requires a certain level of mental development, development of the will, and even practice and habit.

 

So for kids, what it looks like won't always be the same as how it looks in an adult.  Sometimes the parent or other adult will have to help with those aspects, and help, as they grow, to develop new facets.

 

I do think it's an important virtue.  Maybe especially for living in a democratic society, where to a significant degree we depend on people of their own accord submitting themselves to the political process - it's not a tyranny where we just treat adults like children to be made to submit through force or threats, instead people have to have the self-control and sense of themselves as part of an organic social order for it to work smoothly.

 

I think we tend to emphasize the discerning while severely under-emphasizing the submission and also the building up of the will.  It seems to me that an inability to really understand obedience can be detrimental in many aspects of life, for example, it makes it very hard to learn from even a good teacher.

 

And I think that people who do not have the skill of obedience are often not very effective, and maybe even worse, dangerous, when they are put in the position of the person to whom obedience is owed.

Bluegoat, I thought about this idea off and on all day, and you caught a lot of what I was going to say.  Rather than go point-by-point, I think I would just like to add this to the mix:  What if there is Truth?  Not relative truth, but Truth?  That changes the perspective on obedience compared to what it looks like in relative truth.  I wonder how foreign this discussion would seem to people who lived in a time where Truth mattered more than it does in our day.  And I wonder how their discussion would sound to our post-modern ears.  

[Farrar]

I agree with those saying that obedience may be a necessity for some kids or at some ages, but I don't see it as a virtue in any way beyond the basic good of "it kept the child safe." But so can a bike helmet and it's not a virtue. I think the ultimate goal is always as much critical thinking as a child is capable of and getting past the idea of obedience as a foundation as the child is ready.

 

My kids are generally freakishly obedient to dh and me. I think it's maybe 25% that I did something right in very rarely asking for their obedience in the first place and always explaining the reasoning when I had a chance and 75% their personalities. At one point I worried that they'd be serious followers in peer groups and that it would be something we'd really, really have to work on. I've now seen them call out friends and not stand for crap several times so I'm less worried, but still. Having a generally obedient disposition is something that's convenient when you have a toddler or a preschooler and is so much less convenient when you have a teen just because you don't know who they're going to be obedient towards exactly when there are so many close relationships forming.

 

 

[Xahm]

I think I take a middle ground approach. I like the kind of obedience that goes hand in hand with trust. If someone I trust says "stop," I stop, at least long enough to find out why they said it. My kids are little. I require that they listen first, then question. For example, if my four year old is dashing off in the store, I say stop. She stops and then says "I was just going to open the milk case for you." I say "thanks, that's a great idea" and life goes on happily. But I do need her to stop first, because obviously some things that seem like a great idea to a four year old are not so great in actuality. There are times when my kids, even after explanation, do not want to go along with things (generally going to bed, leaving the park, etc). I require they obey me then, but I do reassure them that when they are grownups, they can decide to stay up as late as they want.

I have a friend who was taken aback because my then 2 or 3 year old wanted something (a cookie?) very badly. I told her "not now, come back over here," but she stood, clearly thinking, for a good minute before coming to me. I praised her highly for making a good choice when it was obviously hard to do. My friend was surprised I hadn't punished her for not listening right away. Thinking back on that later made me feel sick almost. I can't imagine prizing instant obedience over a willed decision to put aside one's own desires in favor of the good. That second kind is the admirable obedience, in my book. Obeying purely out of fear or habit is useful for parents, but clearly not a virtue.

[Pawz4me]

 you and I are on the same wavelength here

 

we've never done rewards or a system or anything like that for basic life skills.

 

for instance, I've discovered that for my kids, once they're about 1.5 or 2, if you take the diapers and bottoms off for a week and show them how to use the potty, they learn how to use it.  Forks are generally less messy (and adults use them) and therefore preferable to fingers once the kids reach a certain age - around 3-5?  etc.

 

You've never ever told your kids "good job!" or "awesome!" or "you did great!" or gave them a hug for doing well or . . . anything like that??

 

Those are all rewards.

[kiwik]

I suppose I see my ability to go along with authority as a blessing in my life, too.

 

I do not understand people that forever question authority--my mother is one, my brother, and two of my kids. Also (of course), many, many homeschoolers. None of these people who are very close to me seem like they are better off for this. It seems as if their life would be infinitely better for learning to obey in many instances. Fighting "the man" at every step seems a horrible way to live..

It is hard work always fighting and I am finally learning to pick my battles a bit. But I was an obediant child and when I wasn't there was no intent to disobey. It is just how I was made.

 

I like the children to obey when we are getting ready for work/school etc but that is because they find getting to school on time less important than I find getting to work on time.

[eternalsummer]

You've never ever told your kids "good job!" or "awesome!" or "you did great!" or gave them a hug for doing well or . . . anything like that??

 

Those are all rewards.

 

But there is a difference between the natural interaction in these things and deliberate operant conditioning like you do when you're training a dog.

 

Or at least with any dog training I've ever seen - if you're just talking about interacting naturally with dogs or with children or with your spouse, that seems different to me from things like reward charts and treats and etc.  We do the former (natural interaction, both positive and negative) but not the latter (formal punishments or rewards).

 

We don't have a dog, though, and the one I had as a child was not trained to do a single $#@ thing (he was not the best behaved of dogs) so I could be wrong about what dog training means.

[Pawz4me]

But there is a difference between the natural interaction in these things and deliberate operant conditioning like you do when you're training a dog.

 

Or at least with any dog training I've ever seen - if you're just talking about interacting naturally with dogs or with children or with your spouse, that seems different to me from things like reward charts and treats and etc.  We do the former (natural interaction, both positive and negative) but not the latter (formal punishments or rewards).

 

We don't have a dog, though, and the one I had as a child was not trained to do a single $#@ thing (he was not the best behaved of dogs) so I could be wrong about what dog training means.

 

Yes and no  . . maybe?

 

With my own dogs (in recent years -- once I gathered a decent amount of knowledge) I don't do very much in the way of formal training sessions at all. Instead it's all done during the course of our regular life as situations arise. So it "looks" like a very natural part of our daily life. It's why I often have a hard time giving people advice on how to train their dog to do a certain thing. It's gotten to the point that my training is very situational and intuitive, which is different than formal, deliberate training.

 

If I were doing formal training sessions (or classes or working with a private trainer) it would look much more deliberate.

 

But all of it is still operant conditioning.

[creekland]

I'm starting to believe more and more than it's a personality thing with some people.  Some people are compliant and listen.  Some people don't so easily.  I haven't done anything special in the parenting department and my kids generally listen to me and generally do not give me a hard time.  I know some parents who have tried everything and then some and have kids who give them a hard time.  So maybe we don't have as much control over these things as we think we do.

 

:iagree:

 

I do not see obedience as a virtue.  We never taught our kids to do things just because we said so (not beyond toddlerhood anyway).  We taught reason and thinking.  We taught teamwork and being a good member of society.

 

Pure obedience can work out horribly.  Parents/leaders are not always right.  Some parents insist their offspring share illegal drugs with them or steal for them or similar.  Some leaders want their underlings to kill for them.

 

Even in the Bible, Rahab was praised for her disobedience...

 

I prefer to work with an employee, boss, or partner who can think rather than one who follows "the book."  Hubby was raised to toe the line.  Rules were rules and that was that.  He was also voted "Most Likely to Get Shot by His Own Troops" as a senior in college (in the Corps of Cadets no less - a military offshoot).  I "corrupted" him.  Had he not changed after we met, we'd have never gotten married.  He's now a super highly esteemed engineer who does well with people skills in all situations (better than me actually). I have to let him handle things that drive me crazy because he's more patient.

 

We started our kids off quite young teaching them to think.  We explained why (more than once).  We let them experience consequences (when appropriate) if explanations didn't work.  It didn't take long before they trusted us...  Even now as adults we have some awesome discussions as we ponder a lot of "what ifs" in our world.

 

Anyone demanding obedience from me is not likely to get it unless we've built up a relationship.  That doesn't mean I ignore stop signs or basic laws/rules.  Following those is all part of being a good member of our society.  So is my recycling, being polite, and doing nice things for others - even though those usually aren't laws.

[The Girls' Mom]

On a related note, a local church is doing a parenting series. The sign said "there are no rebellious teens, only toddlers who were never taught to obey". I wonder, at what point are a person's faults NOT because of their upbringing? If my 35yo son robs a bank, is it because I never spanked him??

 

 

Ugh.  I hate that kind of stuff.  Along with "All suffering is because there is a lesson we need to learn" and "God never gives us more than we can handle".

 

Dh was raised in a much more strict home than I was.  MUCH.  He was the rebellious one, and I was a remarkably good kid for having so few restrictions.  Then again, we have siblings that are pretty much our polar opposites.  His brother never got into trouble at all, and my brother can't stay out of jail.  I think genetics play a much bigger role than we realize.

 

I valued obedience in my small children (especially when overwhelmed with 3 kids 3 and under).  I don't value blind obedience when they are old enough to have a conversation, and my kids have been taught to question authority when appropriate.  I certainly don't see it as a virtue.  Even terrorists blowing up an airport because ISIS told them to are obedient.  

[EmseB]

I find it interesting, all the people in this thread saying they don't teach obedience, but they teach their kids how to cooperate in the family or society or whatever. It's the same thing! You're just using a different set of words to describe it.

 

The assumption is that "obedience" goes along with the words "blind" or "demand" or whatever negative connotations, when often obedience is simple cooperation within a family or place of employment or society, and doesn't mean the person in question is not thinking or evaluating situations. As much as people seem to not like the word, if you've taught your kid to "thoughtfully cooperate" within your family structure or within society, you've taught them obedience.

 

The semantics remind me of a friend who once told me she didn't make New Year's resolutions, rather she just had a list of goals she wanted to accomplish in the New year. :D

[Bluegoat]

Fallacious. Parent to child and spouse to spouse are (self-evidently) fundamentally different relationships.

 

And at what point do you draw the line? I'm literally laughing at this "3.5 years old" business. Lucky lucky lucky ducky ducky duckies.

 

Yes, and small child is different than adult child.

 

We don't expect kids to have the same abilities as adults in other areas of life, so why would we expect their obedience to look identical?  For adults, a major part of obedience is knowing when and where it is what it is called for, or how to work out what could be conflicts in duty, but does anyone think that children are capable of that from the time they are small?  Parents do that for them because they are not developmentally there yet, that is why parental obedience is often so emphasized I'd say - the parent in most cases is the most appropriate person to take on that role for the child.

[regentrude]

I find it interesting, all the people in this thread saying they don't teach obedience, but they teach their kids how to cooperate in the family or society or whatever. It's the same thing! You're just using a different set of words to describe it.

 

The assumption is that "obedience" goes along with the words "blind" or "demand" or whatever negative connotations, when often obedience is simple cooperation within a family or place of employment or society, and doesn't mean the person in question is not thinking or evaluating situations. As much as people seem to not like the word, if you've taught your kid to "thoughtfully cooperate" within your family structure or within society, you've taught them obedience.

 

No, I do not find that "obedience" and "cooperation" are the same thing. I see a definite difference between them.

 

Obedience: compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

Cooperation: the process of working together to the same end.

 

Obedience is doing something because of the authority of the person giving the command/request. Which also means that, among equals, obedience cannot exist, by definition. Equals, however, can cooperate for the common good.

The people on my team at work are not "obedient" to me - heaven forbid! They cooperate make the team project function smoothly, because they think about what is necessary and how to achieve the goal. 

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by regentrude

[Murphy101]

I find it interesting, all the people in this thread saying they don't teach obedience, but they teach their kids how to cooperate in the family or society or whatever. It's the same thing! You're just using a different set of words to describe it.

 

The assumption is that "obedience" goes along with the words "blind" or "demand" or whatever negative connotations, when often obedience is simple cooperation within a family or place of employment or society, and doesn't mean the person in question is not thinking or evaluating situations. As much as people seem to not like the word, if you've taught your kid to "thoughtfully cooperate" within your family structure or within society, you've taught them obedience.

 

The semantics remind me of a friend who once told me she didn't make New Year's resolutions, rather she just had a list of goals she wanted to accomplish in the New year. :D

I agree. If you've ever told your kid to do something and expected them to do it - you've taught and expected obedience. Playing with words doesn't change that.

[Scarlett]

I find it interesting, all the people in this thread saying they don't teach obedience, but they teach their kids how to cooperate in the family or society or whatever. It's the same thing! You're just using a different set of words to describe it.

 

The assumption is that "obedience" goes along with the words "blind" or "demand" or whatever negative connotations, when often obedience is simple cooperation within a family or place of employment or society, and doesn't mean the person in question is not thinking or evaluating situations. As much as people seem to not like the word, if you've taught your kid to "thoughtfully cooperate" within your family structure or within society, you've taught them obedience.

 

The semantics remind me of a friend who once told me she didn't make New Year's resolutions, rather she just had a list of goals she wanted to accomplish in the New year. :D

Times 10.

 

I dont know why the word obedience is so repulsive to some people. I suspect because of religious implications or abuse of power in some other way.

 

My 16 year old can't remember half of what he is told to do. But I don't think he is disobedient. At this point I need him to take the trash out to the curb on Wednesday nights so that it doesn't pile up......we can call it obedience or cooperation, or doing his share or whatever you want but I just need it done. Same with other things like washing the dishes before I get home from work so that I can start cooking in a clean kitchen. I am less concerned that he is not obeying me and more concerned that I need it done. The consequences of him not doing those things are a cranky mother. I don't punish him.

 

Also some personality types like my son do ask too many questions. For instance helping my Dh do a work project around the house. Chances are great Dh has a really good reason....from 30 plus years of construction and engineering experience....for what he is asking. But maybe not. Either way, doing it dhs way is not going to hurt ds and when he is in charge of a project he can do it his own way.

[Bluegoat]

I think I take a middle ground approach. I like the kind of obedience that goes hand in hand with trust. If someone I trust says "stop," I stop, at least long enough to find out why they said it. My kids are little. I require that they listen first, then question. For example, if my four year old is dashing off in the store, I say stop. She stops and then says "I was just going to open the milk case for you." I say "thanks, that's a great idea" and life goes on happily. But I do need her to stop first, because obviously some things that seem like a great idea to a four year old are not so great in actuality. There are times when my kids, even after explanation, do not want to go along with things (generally going to bed, leaving the park, etc). I require they obey me then, but I do reassure them that when they are grownups, they can decide to stay up as late as they want.

I have a friend who was taken aback because my then 2 or 3 year old wanted something (a cookie?) very badly. I told her "not now, come back over here," but she stood, clearly thinking, for a good minute before coming to me. I praised her highly for making a good choice when it was obviously hard to do. My friend was surprised I hadn't punished her for not listening right away. Thinking back on that later made me feel sick almost. I can't imagine prizing instant obedience over a willed decision to put aside one's own desires in favor of the good. That second kind is the admirable obedience, in my book. Obeying purely out of fear or habit is useful for parents, but clearly not a virtue.

 

Yes, I think that's a good point about fear.

 

Though with habit, I think it's more neutral - it can be a problem, in adults, when they let habit and sometimes really indolence dictate a response - "I'll be obedient to my boss because I don't have to think about it when perhaps in this situation I should be obedient to the law instead," say.

 

OTOH - obedience as a habit can be very helpful when it is something we should do, but  don't want to do, or struggle with. 

[Scarlett]

No, I do not find that "obedience" and "cooperation" are the same thing. I see a definite difference between them.

 

Obedience: compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

Cooperation: the process of working together to the same end.

 

Obedience is doing something because of the authority of the person giving the command/request. Which also means that, among equals, obedience cannot exist, by definition. Equals, however, can cooperate for the common good.

The people on my team at work are not "obedient" to me - heaven forbid! They cooperate make the team project function smoothly, because they think about what is necessary and how to achieve the goal.

I don't consider my child and myself equals. I am in a position of authority over him...even in a legal sense. Authority doesn't have to equal tyranny. Obedience doesn't have to equal blindness.

[Bluegoat]

No, I do not find that "obedience" and "cooperation" are the same thing. I see a definite difference between them.

 

Obedience: compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

Cooperation: the process of working together to the same end.

 

Obedience is doing something because of the authority of the person giving the command/request. Which also means that, among equals, obedience cannot exist, by definition. Equals, however, can cooperate for the common good.

The people on my team at work are not "obedient" to me - heaven forbid! They cooperate make the team project function smoothly, because they think about what is necessary and how to achieve the goal. 

 

But there are all kinds of authoritative relationships in society.

 

My municipality recently said that all garbage has to go in clear bags, except one bag a week.  This is so that they can see whether people are separating their waste properly.

 

You can call following that direction "cooperation" if you want, and it wouldn't be wrong, but there is absolutely an element of authority there - if I disagree with the law and don't follow it, I will still not get my garbage collected or even end up with a fine.  I am not, in this, equal to the city government, we are not some laterally equal team.

 

There are all kinds of other examples of authoritative relationships in most people's lives - bosses, professional organizations and unions, schools, teachers, all levels of government, parents, churches, as well as more abstract things like justice or good.  Some of them we are subject to simply as a matter of being human beings or citizens, others because we choose to enter into that relationship.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Bluegoat

[regentrude]

I don't consider my child and myself equals. I am in a position of authority over him...even in a legal sense. Authority doesn't have to equal tyranny. Obedience doesn't have to equal blindness.

 

The poster to whom I responded specifically said  "when often obedience is simple cooperation within a family or place of employment or society". She was not just talking about children, but speaking in general.

 

My goal is to raise functional adults who are able to cooperate in family, work place, society. Many situations do not involve a power differential. 

[regentrude]

But there are all kinds of authoritative relationships in society.

 

My municipality recently said that all garbage has to go in clear bags, except one bag a week.  This is so that they can see whether people are separating their waste properly.

 

You can call following that direction "cooperation" if you want, and it wouldn't be wrong, but there is absolutely an element of authority there - if I disagree with the law and don't follow it, I will still not get my garbage collected or even end up with a fine.  I am not, in this, equal to the city government, we are not some laterally equal team.

 

There are all kinds of other examples of authoritative relationships in most people's lives - bosses, professional organizations and unions, schools, teachers, all levels of government, parents, churches, as well as more abstract things like justice or good.  Some of them we are subject to simply as a matter of being human beings or citizens, others because we choose to enter into that relationship.

 

But the best result is achieved if people, instead of obeying just because the authority gives an order, see the necessity of the rule and follow it not because of the authority, but because they are cooperating to achieve the common goal. 

To take the example of waste separation (which in my home country is a big deal): the best results come from the people who see the necessity and are diligent to separate compostables, recyclables and land fill because they want the best for the planet. People who see it as just some rule by authorities that has to be obeyed to avoid a fine are more likely to cut corners and sneak trash where it does not belong.

My goal in raising my children is to achieve an understanding of the reasons why I request cooperation. Obedience, to me, means doing something because the person in authority says so. Cooperation, to me, means doing something because I have understood the reasons for it. (So the cooperative person would separate her garage even if there were no threat of a fine).

No, not the same thing.

Edited August 30, 2016 by regentrude

[shawthorne44]

Along these lines, I don't know anyone who teaches their kids to blindly obey just anyone. To contrast your statement, I think most people would think, in that particular situation, a stereotypical "obedient kid" would obey what they've been taught by their parents (don't do drugs, mmmkay) and a "rebelious kid" would disobey their parents and take the pill. There are few kids (I hope) being taught to obey everyone who tells them to do something. Especially not same age peers.

 

There are certainly kids who are more prone to following the crowd, but I don't equate that with obedience at all. I have a sibling who disobeyed known rules in our household in order to impress friends and be in with a certain crowd.

 

I don't think parents MEAN to teach their kids to obey just anyone, but when they teach their kids to obey that is what they are doing.  At some point the kids will start to cut the apron strings and the important people in their lives will be their friends or those that they'd like to be their friends.  

 

Teaching obedience doesn't always turn out with the kid passed out in a gutter.  Several times I've seen/known kids who fell in with a good crowd and the peer pressure was toward getting into a good college and then getting a good job without messing up your life on the way.  

[Xahm]

Yes, I think that's a good point about fear.

 

Though with habit, I think it's more neutral - it can be a problem, in adults, when they let habit and sometimes really indolence dictate a response - "I'll be obedient to my boss because I don't have to think about it when perhaps in this situation I should be obedient to the law instead," say.

 

OTOH - obedience as a habit can be very helpful when it is something we should do, but  don't want to do, or struggle with. 

 

I didn't mean it is bad to obey out of habit (or even fear), but it isn't commendable/virtuous. Most of the time when I come to a complete stop at stop signs, I do it out of habit. I can see that the way is clear, but I do it because that's what is done. Other times there is a police officer sitting at the intersection and I make sure to use my turn signal and come to a really, obviously complete stop out of fear of a ticket. That's not a bad reason to obey, but it's not praiseworthy.  

[Pam in CT]

re different meanings / connotations with the word "obedience""

I find it interesting, all the people in this thread saying they don't teach obedience, but they teach their kids how to cooperate in the family or society or whatever. It's the same thing! You're just using a different set of words to describe it.

The assumption is that "obedience" goes along with the words "blind" or "demand" or whatever negative connotations, when often obedience is simple cooperation within a family or place of employment or society, and doesn't mean the person in question is not thinking or evaluating situations. As much as people seem to not like the word, if you've taught your kid to "thoughtfully cooperate" within your family structure or within society, you've taught them obedience.
...

Yes, from the outset of the thread it's clear that people do define the term differently.

 

I was among the early posters who answered "I don't consider obedience per se to be a virtue... while discernment and self-restraint are..." and, to your point, I certainly do value simple cooperation / thoughtful cooperation within the family and in other contexts.  So I suspect the actual day-to-day goings-on between parents & children here looks pretty similar to what you describe in yours, semantics notwithstanding.

 

For me, the connotation with the word "obedience" that troubles me is not "blind" or "demand."  For me, the obstacle to the term is its association with power, something close to the idea regentrude expressed:

 

No, I do not find that "obedience" and "cooperation" are the same thing. I see a definite difference between them.

 

Obedience: compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another's authority.

Cooperation: the process of working together to the same end.

 

Obedience is doing something because of the authority of the person giving the command/request. Which also means that, among equals, obedience cannot exist, by definition. Equals, however, can cooperate for the common good.

The people on my team at work are not "obedient" to me - heaven forbid! They cooperate make the team project function smoothly, because they think about what is necessary and how to achieve the goal. 

 

And it is that power context that for me limits the "virtue-ness" of obedience.  There are limited contexts (very small children, safety situations like the mountain-climbing scenario described upthread, many contexts in the military) where instant compliance to a hierarchical set of orders is warranted.

 

To my mind, though, those situations are pretty limited.  That informs my response to the OP question, is obedience ALWAYS a virtue.  To my mind, no.  A 17 year old should be well on the way to autonomy and discernment -- the parent-child relationship by then should look much closer to cooperation between adults towards a common end, than "obedience."  (This is a PITA in practice, I concede...  :laugh: )  A work environment based strictly on obedience, in which employees do not call attention to safety or efficiency issues or make suggestions on possible improvements, is not a healthy one -- a cooperative model is far better.

 

Even in the military there are situations, immensely difficult, when orders are illegitimate.

 

So while I greatly value what I called restraint (and another pp called self-control), as well as discernment and certainly cooperation -- and what those "look like" in practice may look in practice awfully similar to what some posters are defining as "obedience" looks in practice, for me that pairing of obedience - power differential limits the universal applicability of its virtuousness -- the OP question was "is obedience ALWAYS a virtue."

[Guest]

But the best result is achieved if people, instead of obeying just because the authority gives an order, see the necessity of the rule and follow it not because of the authority, but because they are cooperating to achieve the common goal.

To take the example of waste separation (which in my home country is a big deal): the best results come from the people who see the necessity and are diligent to separate compostables, recyclables and land fill because they want the best for the planet. People who see it as just some rule by authorities that has to be obeyed to avoid a fine are more likely to cut corners and sneak trash where it does not belong.

My goal in raising my children is to achieve an understanding of the reasons why I request cooperation. Obedience, to me, means doing something because the person in authority says so. Cooperation, to me, means doing something because I have understood the reasons for it. (So the cooperative person would separate her garage even if there were no threat of a fine).

No, not the same thing.

You have to do it whether it is something you agree with based on common goals, or not. Maybe that's the VERY BEST WAY but my goodness, no one can expect to agree with every rule, goal, or value all the time.

 

Butcha still gotta go the thing that the people say ya gotta do. So many things lie between "I agree" and "I disagree to the level that I'm going to get some civil disobedience up in this piece."

[Bluegoat]

But the best result is achieved if people, instead of obeying just because the authority gives an order, see the necessity of the rule and follow it not because of the authority, but because they are cooperating to achieve the common goal. 

To take the example of waste separation (which in my home country is a big deal): the best results come from the people who see the necessity and are diligent to separate compostables, recyclables and land fill because they want the best for the planet. People who see it as just some rule by authorities that has to be obeyed to avoid a fine are more likely to cut corners and sneak trash where it does not belong.

My goal in raising my children is to achieve an understanding of the reasons why I require cooperation. Obedience, to me, means doing something because the person in authority says so. Cooperation, to me, means doing something because I have understood the reasons for it. (So the cooperative person would separate her garage even if there were no threat of a fine).

No, not the same thing.

 

Obedience might mean doing a thing because the person in authority says so, but it does not mean that a person does not know and agree with the thing, although it might.  (Many people, for example, who think that waste reduction is important also felt that clear bags were not a good idea.) 

 

But, even if they do not agree with the thing, or that it will forward common goals, they recognize the authority of the municipality to make decisions about waste collection.  So they do it anyway.

 

If everyone had to agree with every decision of every person or group they were under the authority of, I suspect there wouldn't be a single viable social organization left, from political parties to boards of governors to charities, to HOAs.  Even whenever we accept the results of an election where we disagree with the outcome, we are recognizing the authority of the political process over the individual voter.

 

I am guessing you don't want your kids to feel obliged to think that whatever laws or regulations are passed by a body, they must uncritically agree with them.  But given what you have said about obedience, that seems to suggest that if they are critical, you should think there is no obligation to, as you say, cooperate?

 

 

So, do you think if your adult child things the rule about the bags is not a good one, he should not do it?  I am guessing that you would not say that is normally going to be an appropriate response to a law or rule we happen to disagree with, unless it in some way violates a greater principle