Are You Keen That Your Children Read The Same Moral Tales Which You Read?
The old moral tales, like the ones we read in Amar Chitra Katha, may do more harm than good to our children in today’s context. Especially the ones which say, “The truth always prevails,” or “Put others interest before yours,” “It’s better to be good and poor than rich and bad,” etc. etc.
However, the world works otherwise, mostly on Machiavellianism. Our children, if fed on stories like this, will have to do a lot of unlearning when they grow up. No?
Reason: Edited the title to bring clarity
If you think you turned out allright..why would you assume your kids won't? Human nature hasn't changed significantly since you were a kid.
I think everyone should agree with Rio.Actually what we misunderstood is that we assume that one will follow our advise but thats not complete picture.One will follow what we practise more than what we advise.Because easiest job in the world is to give advice.This makes its value almost negligible.
the worst vice is advice brother.
Yes, Rio. Agree....
Thanks Saurabh for your perspective.
If I understood Saurabh correctly, he meant that it's safer to follow what traditional moral tales teach. I think his view is shared by a number of people.
I too had similar views till sometimes, may be till my late teens....
Moral tales taught me that if you are good to people and don't harm them, they too will not. If you help someone, he will always be obliged to reciprocate. If you speak truth, you will be favoured and loved by all. If you forgive your enemy, he will so indebted that he will be your slave for life.
Most of these turned out to be incorrect. Being nice with people can be perceived as weekness. Most people do not reciprocate your goodness which you displayed towards them in past, but will behave only based on their judgement about what you can do for them in future. The truth is favoured not by all, but by only a set of people who find it convenient. Forgiving the enemy doesn't make a friend out of him, but gives him time to recover from his injuries, andattack with more venegence......
My views may seem negative, but I find them realistic........
Somehow I am more inclined to let my children read "The 48 Laws of power", than the Moral Tales of Amar Chitra Katha. Both contradict one another (mostly), and you needs to choose only one. The choice is yours.
Alternatively, one may choose to keep one set of values for display (the traditional moral ones), while actually acting as per "The 48 Laws of Power". That too is an option. Machiavelli would do that...
Well i think you have interpretated me partly.I am saying that we have a control on nurturing and nature is something which can have multiple personality traits and we cant control it without medical treatment.If one is extreamist by nature he will grow with different perception than that of sound on.I dont think hitler can be made gandhi ji easily or atleast just by providing moral science books etc.
Basically nature and nurture are two things responsible for growth.Nature implies to the architecture of brain and proportions of hormones and nurture implies to the atmosphere of surrounding in which one grows. The effectiveness of nurture will depend on nature but nature cannot be judged at early age. So we cant take risk. We have to follow old traditions to be on safe side.
CK, Your comments give good thought for food....
Exactly my thoughts when you say about limit of being good
I think I intended to say," Will you like your kids......." instead of "Will you let...."
My parents liked (wanted) me to read Amar Chitra Katha, but i am not very keen about my children reading it........
And I have seen N number of people who quote iACK and Geeta and bible, while talking but are careful enought to act differently ... They act in a way which is suits them best.............
I know now that values are of two types...... Values for display, and there are inner values which are secretely followed by people.
Maciavellianism was Chanakya neeti........
Not all ACK lessons need to be unlearnt. Some Hitopadesha fables and parables teach Chanakya Neeti too......but these stories are in minority there.
I am getting so much varied and interesting views.....and understaning it better and better.
Do we really still think today's children have any boundation on what kind of content we will let them access and what we won't and what we would like them to read and what we won't?
I think the key lies in how we mould them into understanding the difference between what a good human being does and what is the limit of being good (afterall, once this limit is crossed, you are taken for granted and are considered a fool by the all clever world). The key lies into what they think of and how they interact with those around them, rich and poor, strong and weak, people elder to them and younger than them. Again one shouldn't expect them to do the right thing or act in the right always, afterall they are kids. This is when a parent has to intervene and mould them to take the right decisions at the right time.
Then, beyond any moral tales, kids learn a lot from what they see. Afterall, the biggest chunk of what they learn and whom they'd be like, depends upon what they see happening around themselves, how they find their parents acting in different situations.
As far as the Machiavellianism (a term which I've heard for the first time 
), it is like intolerance in India. It has existed for time immemorial. We too were fed on these stories, and still most of us learnt and managed to find our way out in this world.
What children learn is the combination of both, no?
Amar Chitra katha and all forms the foundation of the principles, and gives that sense of discrimination from right and wrong. I have read a lot in my life, but I still learn my lessons from the tales that I learnt during childhood. And seriously, you are seeing the world from the wrong perspective if you believe that children will have to unlearn those lessons. World works on Machiavellian way, but that does not mean an individual has to too.
This might be a idealistic view, but I still believe in the words "It’s better to be good and poor than rich and bad". I might not scale the pinnacle of success or have name in the Richest people of the world, but I am able to be happy and sleep at night with a smile on my face mostly. Is it so wrong that I still believe in these principle if I am able to be happy?
And I am sure that I am not alone in this. All these jaded people, like NSV above(my preception of you, NSV! ), follow the same principles. They might believe that they are being dragged down because of it, but then they still do the right thing as much as they can.
I have not read Amar Chitra Katha ever, and I don't follow any principles whatsoever
Parichita, you have put your views very well.
No wrong if your values make and keep you happy And yes, a good sleep and night is very important, more than being rich.
As for me, I had to do a lot of unlearning, I stopped believing in some lessons, and still belive in some. And I feel no guilt about correcting my perspecitive about things (which I call unlearning). I belive, the world works in Machiavellian way beacsue the individuals forming the world work in Machiavellian way (most of them).
It's an individual perspective, and it seems there are more than one. To find how many, is the purpose of this thread.......
NSV,
After giving such an honest view, NSV, don't tell me that you don't follow any principles......
SK, I say it only because it is true
Absolutely, NSV
It's perhaps necessary for surviving with the times...
Could this change be 180 degree too?
It doesn't really matter whether you let them or won't.
A person's morality constantly changes based on things he thinks are unthinkable and undoable
Sign in to reply to this thread
