Page 1 of 1

Character can be taught

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 12:09
by cromwell
Says Tristram Hunt, horny handed tiller of the soil (no, not really) and Labour party shadow education secretary.

He is right; but as he is the shadow education secretary it strikes me is that what he is actually saying is that character can be taught, and that schools are the ones who should be teaching it.

I have to smile. Because when Tristram Hunt speaks, or Michael Gove, or Sir Michael Wilshaw speaks about children the one word that you never hear is "parent".

So it looks like all parties agree that schools should be responsible for raising children; that it is right for the State to replace the family. There is something deeply wrong with this.

Re: Character can be taught

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 12:21
by Workingman
But, but, from a government point of view you wouldn't want parents forming their children's' characters.

You would end up with a country full of individuals; and that would never do. Some of them might think for themselves and some of the things they think might not be what you want them to think.

It has to be far better to have a template with the characteristics of the "ideal" citizen and mould everyone to it....... all except those who have been pre-selected to run the country in the future.

Re: Character can be taught

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 16:08
by TheOstrich
Workingman wrote:But, but ..... you wouldn't want parents forming their children's' characters.


Not just from the government's point of view, but sad to say from society's point of view as well. TBH, from what I've seen, I would not trust many parents from any generation born since the 1970's to impart any sense of moral character to their offspring.

Re: Character can be taught

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2014, 17:26
by cromwell
TheOstrich wrote: TBH, from what I've seen, I would not trust many parents from any generation born since the 1970's to impart any sense of moral character to their offspring.

But the situation that produced these problem parents was also created by the State, at least to a large extent?
So having created a problem, the State now thinks it knows how to cure it.
Wandering slightly in the argument now, but wasn't religion used by the 19th century reformers to try and give the working classes cohesion, to try to get them to live to better standards?
And now that religion is much reduced, the State will step in and set the situation straight?
On form, I wouldn't bank on it.