If your young adult/adult children don't share your values

[HelenM]

I'm asking this because of comments in a thread on another board.

Suppose you have certain values and you're also a leader in an organization which promotes them.

And suppose your young adult/adult child decides to reject the values that you hold and your organization promotes.

How should you respond to your child?

If you say to your child "I don't agree with your choice to reject the values I hold, but you're still my child and I still love and care about you" does that make you a hypocrite? Does it mean you have two standards - one for people in general and another for your own child?

Helen

[livius drusus]

I think that would depend on what consequences you or your organization recommends for any given transgression of values. If you advocate the stoning death of all gay men, then I don't see how you could lovingly accept your son's homosexuality without hypocrisy, for instance. But just because you believe x is immoral I don't think it follows that you're a hypocrite if you don't force your child to stop doing x or else.

[wildernesse]

I agree with livius--especially when you're dealing with an adult child who is not a member of the organization. Seriously, there's only so much control you have over them.

[Farren]

I agree with Liv, too. To demonstrate the non-hypocritical alternative to her example - if, for instance, your organisation considers Marijuana a terrible threat to society, but believes users should be treated with compassion and rehabilitated - and your child thinks that's all bullcrap - its quite possible for you to say "I don't agree with your choice to reject the values I hold, but you're still my child and I still love and care about you" without any hypocrisy at all.

[HelenM]

I think that would depend on what consequences you or your organization recommends for any given transgression of values. If you advocate the stoning death of all gay men, then I don't see how you could lovingly accept your son's homosexuality without hypocrisy, for instance. But just because you believe x is immoral I don't think it follows that you're a hypocrite if you don't force your child to stop doing x or else.

Good point. I agree that it would be hypocritical to say that a certain consequence should happen when anybody except your own child behaves a certain way.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

I agree with Liv, too. To demonstrate the non-hypocritical alternative to her example - if, for instance, your organisation considers Marijuana a terrible threat to society, but believes users should be treated with compassion and rehabilitated - and your child thinks that's all bullcrap - its quite possible for you to say "I don't agree with your choice to reject the values I hold, but you're still my child and I still love and care about you" without any hypocrisy at all.
Or even if you believe that people should not smoke cigarettes and you work for an organization that strongly and actively discourages smoking I think you could still believe it's a matter of personal choice and staunchly support your child's right to smoke without being a hypocrite.

And of course even if a behavior or pattern of behavior appears to be hypocritical that says nothing about the validity of the individual's position. I think to suggest otherwise is a textbook ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, and more often employed as a disingenuous political maneuver than anything else.

[pescifish]

If you say to your child "I don't agree with your choice to reject the values I hold, but you're still my child and I still love and care about you" does that make you a hypocrite?
I don't expect or demand that the people in my life share the same values. But I do reject from my life people with values I think are particularly heinous (as in livius' point). I think I have the same scale/standards for family members as for everyone else in this regard.

Regarding issues of various degrees of import, I think I say the following to just about everyone I care about:

"I don't agree with your choice of beliefs/values, but I still love and care about you."

Does this make me a hypocrite?

I haven't thought about it much, but I guess I think this attitude is the flip side of being a freethinker: acceptance and tolerance of other freethinkers.

[Godless Dave]

You can love and care about someone without condoning everything they do.

[Ymir's blood]

I agree with the sentiments expressed that it is possible to love someone who goes against your own moral values and that it doesn't make you a hypocrite to do so. Furthermore, since I can guess what and where the thread mentioned in Helen's OP is, there is an additional problem with the charge of hypocrisy. The statement being used against said person isn't even their own words, but someone paraphrasing it. At least at the time I read over the thread, there wasn't even a citation as to where the info came from or what was actually said. That pretty much renders any discussion about the position pointless, as you are only discussing hearsay.

[lisarea]

Yeah, I know which thread, too. In that case, it looked to me as though people were interpreting the situation differently, and not so much that their actual views were all that different. Yeah, it was hearsay and not even particularly reliable hearsay, I reckon, but if you grant all the assumptions, someone who heads a group that actively seeks to outlaw abortion supports his daughter's decision to have one, yes, that's hypocrisy. It's not hypocrisy to support the daughter, but to support the decision. There's a difference in there, and I just got the impression that the difference in opinions was mostly a difference in whether the poster believed he was supporting his child, or supporting her actions.

And that would probably accurately describe my position. Say I'm actively involved in MADD or something, and I publicly advocate and argue for strict drunk driving laws that would enforce strict penalties against impaired drivers.

Now say my son gets arrested for drunk driving. I can love and support him without being hypocritical. But it would be hypocritical for me to hire him a lawyer to get him off on a technicality.

Ideally, I'd like to think that situations like that would lead to my having a somewhat more sympathetic attitude toward everyone--that maybe I'd change my stance on the issue to endorse more preventative and rehabilitative measures, based on my newfound empathy or something.

But if I continue to endorse draconian measures against others while tacitly or even overtly excusing the same behavior in my own child, yes, I am a hypocrite.

[viscousmemories]

I reckon, but if you grant all the assumptions, someone who heads a group that actively seeks to outlaw abortion supports his daughter's decision to have one, yes, that's hypocrisy. It's not hypocrisy to support the daughter, but to support the decision.
Then the discussion probably should have remained focused on Bill McCartney the individual, and not the Promise Keepers. Because to the best of my knowledge the Promise Keepers have no official position on the legality of abortion.
But if I continue to endorse draconian measures against others while tacitly or even overtly excusing the same behavior in my own child, yes, I am a hypocrite.
I agree. If it's true that Bill McCartney actively challenged the legality of abortion personally (and I believe he did, at least by way of financial contributions to Operation Rescue) at the same time (i.e. he didn't have a change of heart along the way) as he "staunchly supported" his daughter's right to abortion (assuming the truth of that allegation) then yes, I would agree that he personally is a hypocrite. However again I disagree that an assessment of his personal character necessarily says anything at all about the organization he runs.

[livius drusus]

Yeah, it was hearsay and not even particularly reliable hearsay, I reckon, but if you grant all the assumptions, someone who heads a group that actively seeks to outlaw abortion supports his daughter's decision to have one, yes, that's hypocrisy.

Well, my problem on that thread was not just the passing off of rumors as fact on spurious grounds, but that nobody ever showed me anything like evidence that the PK seeks to outlaw abortion actively or passively. The fact that they hang out with people who do or have individual members who picket abortion clinics doesn't mean the organization has outlawing abortion on the agenda.

And that would probably accurately describe my position. Say I'm actively involved in MADD or something, and I publicly advocate and argue for strict drunk driving laws that would enforce strict penalties against impaired drivers.

Now say my son gets arrested for drunk driving. I can love and support him without being hypocritical. But it would be hypocritical for me to hire him a lawyer to get him off on a technicality.

Excellent example and I agree. If you advocate consequence x for action y as a matter of social or political policy, then in order to avoid hypocrisy I think you need to face those consequences head-on as a matter of personal policy.

Ideally, I'd like to think that situations like that would lead to my having a somewhat more sympathetic attitude toward everyone--that maybe I'd change my stance on the issue to endorse more preventative and rehabilitative measures, based on my newfound empathy or something.

I like that stance. Yes. Learning empathy from ugly situations and then extrapolating that to your general moral position seems like a really just and human approach.

But if I continue to endorse draconian measures against others while tacitly or even overtly excusing the same behavior in my own child, yes, I am a hypocrite.

Yup.

[lisarea]

I reckon, but if you grant all the assumptions, someone who heads a group that actively seeks to outlaw abortion supports his daughter's decision to have one, yes, that's hypocrisy. It's not hypocrisy to support the daughter, but to support the decision.
Then the discussion probably should have remained focused on Bill McCartney the individual, and not the Promise Keepers. Because to the best of my knowledge the Promise Keepers have no official position on the legality of abortion.

Yeah, probably. I didn't read the thread very closely, so I wasn't aware there was a blurring of the distinction between McCartney and Promise Keepers.

This is what I know about Promise Keepers: They're mostly silly old floppy-lipped white men who wear plaid shorts and fanny packs and walk right out in front of your car, whether they have a crosswalk or not. Also, they are Christians, and they have very patronizing attitudes about women.

Again, I'm speaking to the argument that assumes all of the allegations are true: That PK actively seeks to criminalize abortion, and that the reported daughter's abortion story really happened and McCartney expressed support of the decision.

I don't actually assume it's true, but the arguments about the ethics involved in the situation as reported and the arguments about the factual basis were different things. I'm way too lazy and apathetic on the topic to even begin to address the factual aspects. I'm content just hating on them for being inconsiderate pedestrians.

[viscousmemories]

Again, I'm speaking to the argument that assumes all of the allegations are true: That PK actively seeks to criminalize abortion, and that the reported daughter's abortion story really happened and McCartney expressed support of the decision.

I don't actually assume it's true, but the arguments about the ethics involved in the situation as reported and the arguments about the factual basis were different things.
Okay I hear ya. But the assertion wasn't posted in an MF&P thread, it was posted in the activism forum. I think there's a substantial difference between a theoretical discussion in MF&P and saying, "Here, use this unsupported allegation as ammunition against this organization that is alleged to be doing something it may not be doing. And don't ask any questions." Which is exactly how I interpreted that entire exchange right up to the locking of the thread and the current admonishment that questioning the allegations in the OP is now expressly verboten.

I'm way too lazy and apathetic on the topic to even begin to address the factual aspects. I'm content just hating on them for being inconsiderate pedestrians.
Fair enough. :)

[HelenM]

This is what I know about Promise Keepers: They're mostly silly old floppy-lipped white men who wear plaid shorts and fanny packs and walk right out in front of your car, whether they have a crosswalk or not. Also, they are Christians, and they have very patronizing attitudes about women.

The ones I know personally are Christian men of varying ages who genuinely care about their wives and children and want to be better husbands and fathers. And their wives like it when they to go to Promise Keepers meetings because their wives understand they are doing it to become better husbands and fathers. And see a difference when they come back, evidently.

Not one man who I know to have been involved with Promise Keepers has ever walked out in front of my car without or without a crosswalk.

I'm content just hating on them for being inconsiderate pedestrians.

Are they statistically worse than non-Promise Keeper pedestrians? What happened? Did you drive past a meeting at the beginning or end and they crossed in front of you even though you had right of way?

Helen

[beyelzu]

I think that would depend on what consequences you or your organization recommends for any given transgression of values. If you advocate the stoning death of all gay men, then I don't see how you could lovingly accept your son's homosexuality without hypocrisy, for instance. But just because you believe x is immoral I don't think it follows that you're a hypocrite if you don't force your child to stop doing x or else.
you couldnt just answer first, you had to take the good post as well

:glare:

[beyelzu]

I agree with Liv, too. To demonstrate the non-hypocritical alternative to her example - if, for instance, your organisation considers Marijuana a terrible threat to society, but believes users should be treated with compassion and rehabilitated - and your child thinks that's all bullcrap - its quite possible for you to say "I don't agree with your choice to reject the values I hold, but you're still my child and I still love and care about you" without any hypocrisy at all.
Or even if you believe that people should not smoke cigarettes and you work for an organization that strongly and actively discourages smoking I think you could still believe it's a matter of personal choice and staunchly support your child's right to smoke without being a hypocrite.

And of course even if a behavior or pattern of behavior appears to be hypocritical that says nothing about the validity of the individual's position. I think to suggest otherwise is a textbook ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, and more often employed as a disingenuous political maneuver than anything else.



"no, all people who dont like smoking are hypocrites," quoth the giant smoking penis. :D

[lisarea]

Okay I hear ya. But the assertion wasn't posted in an MF&P thread, it was posted in the activism forum. I think there's a substantial difference between a theoretical discussion in MF&P and saying, "Here, use this unsupported allegation as ammunition against this organization that is alleged to be doing something it may not be doing. And don't ask any questions." Which is exactly how I interpreted that entire exchange right up to the locking of the thread and the current admonishment that questioning the allegations in the OP is now expressly verboten.

Ah, that makes sense. To be honest, I almost never know which forum I'm in there, anyway. I sometimes check if I'm about to say something really stupid to make sure I'm not in one of the genteel and rarified upper fora, but other than that, I really don't pay attention.

I know I should, but I suck, so I don't.


The ones I know personally are Christian men of varying ages who genuinely care about their wives and children and want to be better husbands and fathers. And their wives like it when they to go to Promise Keepers meetings because their wives understand they are doing it to become better husbands and fathers. And see a difference when they come back, evidently.

They do teach that the man is the head of the family, though, and that it's his duty to provide spiritual guidance for his wife. I characterize that as a very patronizing attitude.

As to whether the PK program is beneficial, maybe it is. But that could either mean that it's a good program; or it could mean that it tends to attract men who need a lot of improvement.

Are they statistically worse than non-Promise Keeper pedestrians? What happened? Did you drive past a meeting at the beginning or end and they crossed in front of you even though you had right of way?

I live very near Boulder, and for all of the events that have gone on near the campus, Promise Keepers was the worst. For the entire duration of their meetings, you could not drive through the city normally, as they tended to just wander out into traffic. I don't know if they are generally absent-minded, more distracted than usual, unfamiliar with big (?) city ways, or if they simply have a sense of entitlement, but numerous times, I'd have some middle-aged guy saunter right out in front of my moving car and make no real effort to get out of the way promptly.

Other people mentioned the phenomenon, too.

They were worse even than drunken college kids coming out of a football game.

That's not a serious critique, though. Just an observation and a sort of roundabout illustration of my apathy to them.

[HelenM]

Thanks for explaining, lisarea. I figured you must have had some experience with a PK meeting.

I've never been near a meeting. I just know individual men who've been involved with PK.

Helen