In which case of parenting is SOCIETY in the whole better off?

Question

Lets not use example of extreme circumstances. Instead lets say, one option is simply, no additives.
that the parents divorce and the custodial parent is forced to work 2 jobs. Very little time is spent with the child by either parent. There is less negativity in the home but there is also less affection.

My thoughts, The child may grow up without a conscience. Very little will hurt and very little will be truly rewarding. I think this is extremely dangerous to society. Lack of morals and values.

The second option is,
They stay together. But the parents get into argument regularly and show little affection toward each other. What they do do is show affection toward there child. There is enough money and energy to have time with the child.

My thoughts, Ultimately the parents will suffer tremendously and the child will grow up with relationship problems. But this is what is best for society. It is better to have twisted morals than none at all.

OK try not to focus on my biased thoughts. I did try to tone them done quite a bit, it is apparent that they should have been left out all together.

Answer 1

I think societies with intact families are better off than societies with broken families. Children need affection, guidance and understanding. Understandably if a child grows in a family where the adults are also clueless as to how to go about their lives, then this child may grow up with a damaged personality if he doesn't find some other role model with which to follow. As for the first option, the child with little parental affection and understanding will seek it outside the broken family, primarily through his/her peers. Children such as these will be attracted to other children with similar familial backgrounds. They become rebels -- against adults, against authority, against society in general. Nothing good comes out of that.

There is also an unstated assumption about the second option: That parents that stay together go on arguing forever. More often than not, they mellow, compromise, make truce. The resulting increased maturity of the adults gives space for the child to grow up more forgiving, compassionate and accepting, even if the supposed love between the couple is a farce.

Just my opinion. (and some personal experience!)

Answer 2

as a 20 year old in a household most like the latter situation (although on the brink of the first), i feel that the situation of the parents staying together would be best. the deciding factor in this is the fact that there is still affection shown towards the child by both parents. in the first situation, where there is no time to be spent with the child and not enough money to give the child what it wants (money doesnt buy happiness, but it helps). I dont feel that the second option leads to relationship problems, as ive been with my current girlfriend for just over three years now, and theyve all been happy. as for the notion of having twisted morals, it is up to the child to either emulate his parents or go the oppisite way. in my case, i am so disgusted by my parents' relationship that i have gone the complete oppisite direction and use their relationship as a guide of what not to do, rather than what to do. but, after all, this is just me and my opinion.

Answer 3

I find your premise interesting, but I'm not sure about your conclusions. You seem to assume that all morals are developed within the family nest. Yet, children are also socialized at school, during activities, with friends, etc... They also would have the occasion to encounter other couples that work and so forth.
So to say that a child raised by a busy parent doesn't have any morals at all is a bit of a stretch. Also, if parents are capable of staying together for the sake of a child, this would suggest to me that they have a minimal working relationship (They are at least willing to tolerate one another).
Also, children are individuals. We all know of two siblings, raised in the same home, who have very different personalities.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is very difficult to characterize clearly what influences a child is receiving and how these influences are shaping his/he behavior in real world situations.
Also, what about parents who both work, have little time for the child, or to argue with one another, but alleviate their guilt by buying their child's affection with expensive toys and gadgets? What kind of lessons are they providing their child? These families have become very common.

Answer 4

I disagree with your conclusion.

morals and values aren't learned simply by the amount of affection one receives as a child. plus you aren't taking into account the other influences on the child such as grandparents, teachers, friends, other relatives, TV, books, and any brief contact with the parents.

even with no contact whatsoever with the parents, that doesn't mean the child won't have a conscience, morals, or values.

How could someone with twisted morals be better for society? that person would be harmful to all they encounter.

secondly, the child would grow up in a miserable household. "staying together for the children" never works out for the children. they grow up in a war zone.

Answer 5

at the beginning on your examples, who says that the custodial parent will ought to artwork 2 jobs. This parent ought to of been the standard funds maker previously the divorce and if no longer they'll in all probability be getting baby help from the different parent. Why does no longer the baby get to spend time with the different parent? so a approaches as much less negativity and affection, I even have seen divorced father and mom tell their toddlers plenty crap approximately the different parent. Being extraordinarily detrimental approximately each and every thing the different parent does or would not do. Having divorced father and mom could make a baby artwork extra good to have a powerful sturdy dating whilst they grow old. No quantity of artwork could make me be much less affectionate with my daughter. Then, the 2nd decision. there is not any assure that the father and mom with a under pressure dating are nonetheless going to teach perfect affection in direction of their baby. Plus, if the two father and mom artwork then their dating will in all probability impact their artwork subsequently affecting society. father and mom who're under pressure finally end up making their toddlers under pressure too. a achievable loss of interest ought to reason a baby to act out in public or in college, that should deliver approximately a marvelous form of issues for society.

Answer 6

I believe the second option is better. Still, I'd like to suggest a third and much better one.

Most of my childhood friends and I, lived out our formative years in an option-2 environment. Consequently, we're all practicing option 3. No children.

Why? Because we don't love kids? To the contrary, it's because we DO love them. Not like a person loves a puppy (because it makes me so happy). More like a Golden Rule love.

We know firsthand that the first two choices led many of us to consider whether it'd be better to just evaporate; most considered suicide; none that I know of managed to feel that life was anything more than a very long punishment for someone else's mistake.

Though in adulthood, many of us have found our niche, only a few have ever lost that ethical conviction. Only a few have had "puppy" kids.




qwerty

Answer 7

I think the most important role in a childs life is that or the role model of its parents. If parents use love, effections and the right dosis of discipline and social field, children will flourish. If we let go and let the child run , without teaching them morals, values, ethics than it will go in the wrong directions. In this scenario the child will fail.