Jesus Camp

Yes, it is. The difference is that there is no "them" in Buddhism. No separation between "others" and the self. Whatever you are doing to someone else you are doing to yourself, so any harm is done directly to all and yourself simultaneously.
This is why Buddhists like Quantum Mechanics so much, we knew it thousands of years ago, unity and entanglement were always our "laws".

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I have never taught him of a higher power, what is right and doing for others what you would want them to do for you is more than enough, and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

But that's exactly the point, you taught your son what was right. You don't have to teach him about a higher power, but at some point morals (i.e., something beyond critical thinking and rationality) must enter into it with young children. Pangloss seems to be claiming you don't need to teach them morals, just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.

Trying to be rational with anyone under the age of twenty two is about as successful as pissing up a rope.

Yet, it seems to be popular.

That is not true at all.

[Pangloss62]

Pangloss seems to be claiming you don't need to teach them morals, just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.

I would say teach them to think about their decisions and the consequences that follow. "Morality" is so subjective, and varies from culture to culture. Even the Ten Commandments are fallible in terms of civil law. I suppose with the 2-year old you may think it's better to start out simple and say things like:

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not cheat.

Do not kill.

But in the end, I think it would be better to show them why not to do these things, rather than just have these definitive dos and don'ts.

If there were moral absolutes, you would think there would be some sort of mechanism that would punish or censure ALL those who commit immoral acts. But this is not the case. There is not much of a reason NOT to do something simply because you are told that it's "wrong." For the parent, this means that they need to think about punishment for what they deem to be their childrens' immoral behavior. In other words, it isn't enough to say "That was bad, Billy. Don't do it again." Therefore you take a strap to their rear end; cause some pain. They then learn that the consequence for that action is pain, always a good reason not to do something. The time-out thing has run its course. Corporal punishment is the consequence for what you would call an immoral act, and even in the mind of a 2-year old, knowing not to do something for fear of the punishment is a pretty rational thought process. I think they've shown this cognitive process using rats

[dar512]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Trying to be rational with anyone under the age of twenty two is about as successful as pissing up a rope.

Yet, it seems to be popular.

Because being rational with your kids, even when they are acting irrationally, teaches them to be rational.

[Pangloss62]

pissing up a rope.

That is one whacked analogy.

Where does it come from?

[wolf]

Google does not seem to lead to any authoratative sources on this matter.

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I would say teach them to think about their decisions and the consequences that follow. "Morality" is so subjective, and varies from culture to culture. Even the Ten Commandments are fallible in terms of civil law. I suppose with the 2-year old you may think it's better to start out simple and say things like:

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not cheat.

Do not kill.

But in the end, I think it would be better to show them why not to do these things, rather than just have these definitive dos and don'ts.

If there were moral absolutes, you would think there would be some sort of mechanism that would punish or censure ALL those who commit immoral acts. But this is not the case. There is not much of a reason NOT to do something simply because you are told that it's "wrong." For the parent, this means that they need to think about punishment for what they deem to be their childrens' immoral behavior. In other words, it isn't enough to say "That was bad, Billy. Don't do it again." Therefore you take a strap to their rear end; cause some pain. They then learn that the consequence for that action is pain, always a good reason not to do something. The time-out thing has run its course. Corporal punishment is the consequence for what you would call an immoral act, and even in the mind of a 2-year old, knowing not to do something for fear of the punishment is a pretty rational thought process. I think they've shown this cognitive process using rats

Exactly, if you just teach absolutes people can always justify their way out of obeying them, or twist it around so that the rule does not mean what it means. This is why we always have religious purges like Crusades, Ethnic Cleansings, Genocide, God's war on Iraq, and the like... if there is not moral relevance then you can weasel your way out of anything, ethically.

[9th Engineer]

So who's morals do you suggest we teach?

[Pangloss62]

I suggest that parents not teach morals at all. But that is just a suggestion. Most parents will likely continue to teach morals regardless of what I think.

And what do I know? I'm just a caveman. This world frightens and confuses me. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So who's morals do you suggest we teach?

I teach behavior and empathy to my son.
I don't believe in a "who".

It is so ironic to me that people have such a hard time believing that we atheists teach our kids morals and decent behavior just fine.
Just like millions of the atheist Buddhists have for thousands of years while people like Oral Robers, Jerry Falwell, the Christian Identity movement and Conservative Islamists teach hate and immorality just fine to their kids... just makes no sense.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

Trying to be rational with anyone under the age of twenty two is about as successful as pissing up a rope.

Yet, it seems to be popular.

Hey, whoaaa, watch it!

...I try, at least...

[dar512]

Ok headache's all better. I'm ready to bang my head against the wall again.

I said "why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?" You said:

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

To make for a better society. It's the idea of doing something because you don't have to, hoping that someone might do something for you some day. It takes a lot of conscience raising to get to that point

Call it a tenet or whatever you like if it's the word that bugs you, but doesn't that statement indicate that you believe (or have as a moral standard, or whatever) that a person should sacrifice their own benefit to make for a better society?