送交者: apate 于 2005-1-03, 20:33:11:
回答: Don't want to talk "主义", but 由 PhonyDoctorPhD 于 2005-1-03, 19:54:19:
just a few more remarks.
first, i don't mind being called a "moralist." but i have nothing to say about the claim that "everyone can be a moralist". it is just not my concern.
second, speaking of the interview prep process and advice the Lius wrote about (as Xiao Yu quoted), i have a serious problem with it. there is nothing inevitably bad about pleasing the interviewer. but, as i suggested that thread of mine, it is morally problematic in teaching an impressionable kid such interview skills. why? because the message implied in the parents suggested tactics discourages the kid to think for herself and encourages exaggeration. as quoted, the kid started to ask the parents whether is ok or not to follow others to say "to travel USA is to see its landscape and learn about its history." anything wrong with this answer? it is a totally genuine and honest answer. but unfortunately, the parents toally dismiss this good starting point for the kid to think through the matter. they silenced the kid with their parental authority. what else can be more appalling about their parental manner than such kind of "symbolic violence" (Bourdieu) by imposing their adult values?
on this account alone, it is safe to say that it is well grounded for Xiao Yu to argue that the kid is not capable of thinking for herself. (although i don't totally agree with Xiao Yu at all.)
third, speaking of morality, it is essential that we bear in mind that humans have both moral obligations and moral values. the Lius' realism can be better characterized as outright vulgerized utilitarianism. that is, they can do whatever deemed "good" without considering whether it is right or not. it is good for the kid to sacrifice some sleep in order to prep for the interview? many would think it is good, and i have no doubt about their sincerity. but, don't forget that kids have rights as well. it is morally dangerous to push for what is good by ignoring whether it is just or not, and more dangerous if the parents beautify such vulger utilitarianism. like anyone else, kids have their inalienable natural rights to freedom from fear and hunger, needs for personal relationships with peers, privacy of thought, to name a few. are forcing the kid to hold ice and the like necessary contributing factors to the self-claimed success? i serious doubt it. the problem with the Lius is that they pretend that those tactics are justifiable because the outcome is good. is it really the case? i would call the police had i saw them force the kid to hold ice for 15 minutes.
with 20/20 hindsight, they beautify themselves as prophets for the kid's future, justifying those unfair tactics in their own vulgar terms of ulitity.