It is curious to me that children’s books are so full of moralizing, imploring kids to listen to their parents, clean their rooms, eat healthy, be polite, share, etc., and yet the message does not seem to register. If it did, we would live in a much better world.

There are two ways to see this problem. One says that the moral of a children’s story need not become lost, and that with some explanation by the parent, the moral is not only understood, but acted upon. The other way, and the position I will take here, tells us that moralizing using fables, even with explanation by the parent, is useless, and that the child will only learn through experience and the application of natural consequences. Never mind for a moment that natural consequences should not be applied, this will be explained shortly. Much of what is discussed here is in agreement with Jean-Jacques Rouseeau’s doctrine on education espoused in Emile.

The view that tells us we can explain the moral of a story to the child and expect them to act upon it will only work if we use fear. Such is the way religious fables work. The child is told, for example, that when they show disrespect to their friends and family, God become angry. The idea of hell is also useful for convincing children and young adults that they should not do something.

When a child acts out of fear in this way, they reduce their social relations to a self-serving and ultimately alienating set of patterned behaviours. Instead of seeing the natural consequences of acting poorly, they convolutedly imagine some omniscient being delivering consequences for some unknown reason. It’s entirely illogical. Watch now – the following conversation is what may go through your child’s head:

- “Don’t do that, because it makes God angry.”

- “Why does it make him angry?”

- “Because it is a sin, and if you do it you will go to hell.”

- “Why is it a sin?”

- “Because it makes God angry.”

Without a good amount of fear, you will not be able to quell your child’s curiosity, which is the birth of its ability to think critically.

Now, let us imagine that you are the parent, and you have seen your child rip a toy away from another child. You are religious, therefore, you must inflict the fear of God into your child, and you say, “Give that child back his toy and go to your room. God is angry with you, etc., etc.”

In this case the consequences are not authentic, and punishment is inflicted for punishment sake. We see this most commonly in the “time out” parents give to their children for misbehaving. So, your child has gotten angry and thrown a toy? Time out. Your child lies to you? Time out.

Instead, let the punishment occur, or at least appear, as a natural consequence of their actions. Now, when your child throws a toy in anger, you suppose that they do not care for it, and either continue to break it yourself or throw it in the garbage. Certainly the child will ask that it be returned, but insist that they decided, by throwing it, that it was no longer important. When a child become oppositional they will sometimes insist that they do not want to do something, even if it is to their benefit. Agree with them, and watch them try to go back on what they originally said. Do not let them. When they make such decisions out of anger or spite, let them feel the natural consequences, and from then on they will be more likely to say only what they mean. As well, this time when your child lies, insist that hereon nothing they say can be truly believed. When they are innocent of wrongdoing, and you know it, blame them anyways. On this subject, never call them on a lie, but let it unfold on its own so that their ensuing frustration is directed less at your active search for the truth, and more at their own illogic.

I am also told that if we “discuss” the moral of a story with a child, they will understand. Indeed, they will understand the moral of the story, but they do not see that it is intended for them to act upon it.

I could have made every conceivable argument for my child to always lock up her bike, but she would never do it, because consequences cannot be explained so much as they can be experienced. Knowing this, I opted to deliver the natural consequences of her actions. When she awoke this morning, her bike was gone. Somebody (me) had taken it for a joyride to a nearby bike rack.

She could have read every Berenstain Bears and Franklin children’s book that implored her to clean her room, but she will never do it without either being instilled with some irrational fear (ie: God, or violence), or seeing the natural consequences of living like a pig (ie: she cannot find anything, it smells, her friends refuse to play there because it is too cluttered). Of course, the latter consequences are the ones that apply later in life. Once she is twenty years old, if she was only compelled by the fear of God to clean her room, and she has lost faith, what compels her now? Similarly, if she was only thwarted by violence from misbehaving, what will thwart her once she is out of my reach?

I once heard a true story about a child who took scissors and cut up all of her clothes. Now, I am not sure what kind of poor parenting goes into arriving at this sad stage, but the natural consequences seem obvious, and far more effective than a moralizing fable.