A question about the morality of children

[Aletheia Dolorosa]

One thing that I loved most about NL when I first read it was that it confirmed my belief that children/teenagers were inherently more moral than adults.

Later I realised that Pullman has a more nuanced view of the matter than that, and in fact he says nothing of the sort. His child characters are REAL children, vicious and self-centred, but also blunt, without guile and able to see through a lot of the hypocrisy that characterises the world of adults. Even Lyra's lying has a charming and yet deadly serious nature to it.

So I was wondering what you all thought: are children in NL more moral than the adults, or are they simply less hypocritical about acting entirely out of self-interest?

[Jaya]

So I was wondering what you all thought: are children in NL more moral than the adults, or are they simply less hypocritical about acting entirely out of self-interest?

I agree with the latter. I want to say something about...morality and...losing your innocence. Because I think there's some sort of...Hmm, perhaps it's just what you said. When you reach that age of losing your innocence, attracting Dust, settled daemon, etc - it's when you grow up that you start to be aware of your moral standing, and the true morality of your actions...or...something. I'm really terrible at articulation today, sorry.

"It is not only our fate but our business to lose innocence, and once we have lost that, it is futile to attempt a picnic in Eden."

Apt for HDM, I think

[Aletheia Dolorosa]

But don't you think lack of hypocrisy is in some ways a truer morality than acting according to some supposed moral code that actually provides a screen for actions that are still often motivated by self-interest? (Wow, long sentence. Sorry).

And what does Pullman think of the matter? Is there anything in NL/TGK that provides an answer in one way or another?

[Mockingbird]

One thing that I loved most about NL when I first read it was that it confirmed my belief that children/teenagers were inherently more moral than adults.

Actually, I think it is the opposite...I just realized that you must think I live to disagree with you. That's not it, I think you bring up interesting points which make me think about how I feel on the matter. Anyway, I think children are as amoral as adults and I'm tired of books which portray children as lisping angels, I worked with enough children to know that it isn't true. I did appreciate the savagery of Pullman's children.

I agree somewhat with this:

But don't you think lack of hypocrisy is in some ways a truer morality than acting according to some supposed moral code that actually provides a screen for actions that are still often motivated by self-interest?

A lack of hypocrisy is a truer morality but openness is a societal luxury that only children can afford. 'Kids say the durndest things' and all is an accepted norm. Kids are allowed to be openly selfish and blunt and see the world in black and white. When you've lived long enough, you begin to live in the gray areas...like Asriel had to kill Roger to start his campaign for the Republic while to Lyra, it was nothing but wrong. I mean obviously it was wrong, but if he didn't there wouldn't have been a Republic.

[Aletheia Dolorosa]

I think children are as amoral as adults and I'm tired of books which portray children as lisping angels, I worked with enough children to know that it isn't true. I did appreciate the savagery of Pullman's children.

That's what I've been saying, only their amorality is of a different kind. Everyone is out for him or herself; children are just more open and blunt about it because they don't realise that it's wrong. When I was saying that the book confirmed my belief at the time that children were more moral than adults, it was because of stuff like Lyra's quest to rescue Roger, and her black and white view that the ends never justified the means. These are just aspects of this unhypocritical bluntness that you were praising. Pullman's children are certainly not angelic, and I never suggested they were.

I just realized that you must think I live to disagree with you.

I was just thinking this morning that my brain was turning to mush without uni to keep it active, and that I must steal some of my sister's essay questions to keep my mind sharp and analytical. So I'm glad you disagree with me, since it gives me something to think about and keep my brain from mushifying!

[Mockingbird]

When I was saying that the book confirmed my belief at the time that children were more moral than adults, it was because of stuff like Lyra's quest to rescue Roger, and her black and white view that the ends never justified the means. These are just aspects of this unhypocritical bluntness that you were praising. Pullman's children are certainly not angelic, and I never suggested they were.

Oh, I know you weren't suggesting that. I clearly didn't express myself well. What I mean to say is that I don't find that unhypocritical bluntness and black and white view particularly praiseworthy. I think children are lucky that they can be that way and if their morality is any better than adults it's no credit to them, really. Adults have harder choices to make, there are more ways to go wrong.

I was just thinking this morning that my brain was turning to mush without uni to keep it active

Same.

[DarkKnightJRK]

Maybe I'm mistaken (and most likely I shouldn't debate in this until I completely finish the trilogy), but I think that the morality of children has to do with the environment around them, for better or worse.

To continue that idea, it's also easy to say that, since children will most likely look up to them, their key figures of morality are their parents or parental figures.

Think of it this way, and I'm sure most of you have been through a similar experience: Have you ever met a kid that was just a complete and utter brat? Just a twisted little monster with no respect whatsoever to anything or anyone? I will bet you that at least 9 times out of 10, when you meet that kid's parents, they're going to be just as big of brats as the kids.

To use examples from the book: Lyra was raised around rich college people, thus she has more of an aristocratic (a word that is used to directly describe her in the book, by the way) idea of the world around her. Even her and her absent parents have some similarities (both her and Coulter are pretty much chronic liers).

The children of Cit'izee (I KNOW I didn't spell that right), since their parents are in fear of the specters and hide, they have free reign and are thus taught nothing of morality and would willingly murder and steal because they simply want to.

So...yeah, if I'm off the mark, because of some event at the end of Spyglass I haven't read yet, please simply tell me so and not go into detail, so I can find out for myself.

[Somewhat]

Some children are certainly extremely cynical. In Terry Pratchett's Hogfather, the children Susan is being a governess to have figured out how Christmas works - if you're good you get presents. So the girl, Twyla, tells Santa she's 5 (she's and makes spelling mistakes on purpose to look cuter. I think that many kids are just like that - not only do they see things in black and white, they've realised they can change the black and the white to suit them. Often I think 9-year-olds know things I don't, and it worries me.

[Riali]

I always think that it's rather unfair to to lump children together as a separate social group. Being six does not preclude being an individual. One can no more say that children are amoral or immoral or moral than one can say that adults are. It's a generalisation, and it doesn't work.

I do realize that no one here is trying to say that all children are the same, or have exactly the same moral code, but it is a fault of society in general to classify all children as having very similar motivations and attitudes to each other. Its inherent to the point where no one thinks it odd at all when some one declares "I don't like kids" or "I just love children". No one would ever say "I like adults." I'm not even trying to exempt myself from it, I know that I have said things like this too. But it's condescension, and worse, it's prejudice.

Every child has his or her own moral code and social values. Obviously, they are still in development, and are more malleable than they will likely later become, and most children could not yet articulate what his or her morality encompasses, but childhood is by definition a time for development, and less developed does not in any way equate more homogeneous.

One of the reasons that the child characters in HDM do live so vividly is that they are individuals, and PP has not let the concept of a child character exclude unique codes of conduct. There is no more similarity between Will's and Ama's (the girl in Citigazze, have I her name right?) social values than there is between, say, Lee's and Asriel's.

Children, in both the real world and the pages of the trilogy, are individuals, and we can't label them as more or less moral than adults.

(Heh, apparently I had a rant in me about this... I didn't realize it until I started typing. Well, you all know what I think now, anyhow. )

[Aletheia Dolorosa]

Riali, I'm not suggesting that children are some amorphous, unchanging, collection of empty vessels waiting for us to pour our aspirations into. There is as much variety among children in terms of morality and values as there is among adults.

I'm more interested in the way Pullman interprets children's morality, and whether he makes any judgement of it. Since the difference between children and adults, innocence and experience, is such a big part of NL/TGC (and indeed the whole trilogy), I think it's worth discussing.

I'm not really disagreeing with anything you said, though.

Oh, and Ralphie, my 5-year-old cousin could wipe the floor with me if she chose to do so! Often I catch her watching her more melodramatic older brother with an amused expression on her face as if she's thinking 'Why is this idiot getting so worked up?'

[AUST]

Depends which characters, perhapse as a body they are, but on boths sides there are characters who are both morlistic (The Master, Rodger) and who are not (Lord Asriel ect.) and those in between (Lyra). But as a body maybe the kids are more 'moral'.

[Riali]

oy, sorry if i came off a bit harsh. I didn't mean to suggest that any one in particular was disparaging children as a whole or as individuals.
i just meant that as a society we are all rather apt to lump them all together.

And that i think that a reason that the characters in HDM live as vividly as they do, is that PP has made no judgement on the morality of children as a whole, and instead considered each charcater individually.

It is true that he has drawn rather a harsh line between childhood and adulthood, but i think that it has more to do with each individual's journey than anything else.

that is to say, even though he has the daemon's settling as the firm and fast line that an individual has left childhood behind, i dont think that he means to say that there is a transformation of person and values inherent in this transition. it's more a sign that the individual has chosen a path to follow in life, and set themselves upon it.

does this make any sort of sense, or am i just spouting old ideas dressed up in new clothes? ive mangaed to get my self into a thicket of verbiage and speculation, so maybe i had better stop before i get stuck here.

[Enitharmon]

So I was wondering what you all thought: are children in NL more moral than the adults, or are they simply less hypocritical about acting entirely out of self-interest?

They are more innocent and less self-conscious about their actions. They haven't 'fallen', so they don't have the hang-ups about morality that impede their spontaneity.

This idea is dealt with in Heinrich von Kleist's essay On the Marionette Theatre, which Pullman cites, along with Milton and Blake, as among his primary influences. If you read it, you'll find something very familiar!

[Melancholy Man]

How best to describe von Kleist? All the Greek tales of sexual confusion are easier to comprehend as they're 2000 years removed. Von Kleist was just on the edge of the modern edge, so we're worried that here was our minds working.

Plus, I see Jopari translated it during his time as a Chadian witchdoctor.

[Aletheia Dolorosa]

They are more innocent and less self-conscious about their actions. They haven't 'fallen', so they don't have the hang-ups about morality that impede their spontaneity.

This idea is dealt with in Heinrich von Kleist's essay On the Marionette Theatre, which Pullman cites, along with Milton and Blake, as among his primary influences. If you read it, you'll find something very familiar!

Oh, thanks for posting a link to that essay, I've been intending to read it for a while. That pretty much answers all my questions on the children issue.

Oh, and the bear! I thought Pullman had made it up.

[Vicinity of Obscenity]

They are more innocent and less self-conscious about their actions. They haven't 'fallen', so they don't have the hang-ups about morality that impede their spontaneity.

This idea is dealt with in Heinrich von Kleist's essay On the Marionette Theatre, which Pullman cites, along with Milton and Blake, as among his primary influences. If you read it, you'll find something very familiar!

I agree, great addition. One of the things we adults learn real quick growing up is that we cannot be so wrecklessly open with ourselves as children are. We begin adding layers to dull some points and magnify others. Even terrible children, lack of morality accounted for, know no better than to be all that they are and nothing else. They just haven't realized yet.

[HopeToBeWill1]

So I was wondering what you all thought: are children in NL more moral than the adults, or are they simply less hypocritical about acting entirely out of self-interest?

I agree with the latter. I want to say something about...morality and...losing your innocence. Because I think there's some sort of...Hmm, perhaps it's just what you said. When you reach that age of losing your innocence, attracting Dust, settled daemon, etc - it's when you grow up that you start to be aware of your moral standing, and the true morality of your actions...or...something. I'm really terrible at articulation today, sorry.

"It is not only our fate but our business to lose innocence, and once we have lost that, it is futile to attempt a picnic in Eden."

Apt for HDM, I think

Oh,wow. nice bit at the end. Can that be my signature?

[shruikan_shade]

I dont think it's Pullman himself telling us about the morality of children, i see it as him using the adult characters in his books to display the different views of children from different points of view (some people underestimate them, some people dislike them etc...) as opposed to expressing a set opinion of his own on children in general.

[zemarl]

that is to say, even though he has the daemon's settling as the firm and fast line that an individual has left childhood behind, i dont think that he means to say that there is a transformation of person and values inherent in this transition. it's more a sign that the individual has chosen a path to follow in life, and set themselves upon it.

so what would you make of an aggressive criminal who, for whatever compelling reason, chooses to renounce their old ways and become a benevolent citizen of society, assuming they were given the chance to start fresh? do you think their daemon would change, or is behaviour and attitude not as crucial to the nature of a person as the term "personality" would suggest? (i don't mean this to be a discussion of the word itself)

[Vicinity of Obscenity]

that is to say, even though he has the daemon's settling as the firm and fast line that an individual has left childhood behind, i dont think that he means to say that there is a transformation of person and values inherent in this transition. it's more a sign that the individual has chosen a path to follow in life, and set themselves upon it.

so what would you make of an aggressive criminal who, for whatever compelling reason, chooses to renounce their old ways and become a benevolent citizen of society, assuming they were given the chance to start fresh? do you think their daemon would change, or is behaviour and attitude not as crucial to the nature of a person as the term "personality" would suggest? (i don't mean this to be a discussion of the word itself)

I don't think that there would be a change. I don't believe that those tendencies ever really leave somebody. The daemon perhaps represents the internal struggle since the person has renounced the particular behavior. It's the person's will thats overcoming the personality. I happen to like arguing and a long time ago I was a know-it-all that always thought I was right...but anymore if someone upsets me or I see a place where I want to fall back into that rather annoying state I just take a deep breathe and think before I act. It's hard for me sometimes.