There are limits to sharing and we need to teach our children those limits

Over the last few months, I read articles about why some parents aren’t teaching their child to share. At first, I thought what a stupid idea but the more I read, the more I can see their reasoning. I understand that there are limits to sharing and we need to teach our children those limits both as the giver and the receiver. If the toy is a “community toy” as in a day care setting, sharing it would be automatic because it doesn’t belong to the child to decide who plays with it and who doesn’t. What is the toy is the child’s personal property? Do you teach automatic sharing? During my research, I’ve come up with three limits to sharing: kindness not obligation, teaching boundaries, and curbing the entitlement culture.

First, sharing should be out of kindness not obligation. If my daughter wants to share her toys it will be out of the goodness of her heart rather than because I told her so. If we force children to share toys they aren’t done playing with or doesn’t want to share, we are teaching them obligation. “I need to share the toy because Mommy said so” and not because she wants to. When we allow a child to share out of kindness, the child learns generosity and seeing the joy of someone else enjoying the toy as well. One day, one of the neighborhood boys came to me and told me that Abby wasn't sharing whatever toy it was at the time. I know he was thinking she would get in trouble and he would have the toy next. When I told him that the toy belong to Abby and she decided who played with it and when. I've also done the opposite and told Abby that a toy which belongs to another child needs to be returned when he or she wants it back. 

Second, a child is not obligated to share just because another child says “please.” The child is being polite; however, no is a perfectly legitimate response. I think it does a child a great disservice to teach that he or she can have something simply because he or she wants it and said please. We need to teach children that because you want something doesn’t mean you’ll get it and help them cope with disappointment because it will happen. Life isn’t fair. Someone will get something you want before you can get it. As adults, we don’t automatically share our property because someone asks. If an adult says, “No, you can’t borrow (fill in the blank),” nothing is thought as the adult is being unfair but when a child says no, he or she is being mean. Why is it okay to say no as an adult but not as a child?

Third, we’ve become an entitlement culture. Life, the universe or God does not owe you anything. Parents, society or others do not owe you anything. A child needs to learn there are consequences for his or her actions. The “I want it now and I don’t want to work for it” attitude needs to stop. Now that my daughter is playing more with the neighborhood kids, I see the entitlement attitudes more and more especially “I want it because everyone else has it.” One day, my mom brought home a cupcake mix to make with my daughter. After they were done, of course, my daughter wanted one. I gave her one and soon I was bombarded with kids asking for cupcakes. When I told them no, for reasons of safety, not knowing food restrictions and parents’ allowances, they said “But she got one.” Why do they think because I gave my daughter something, it means that I will or have to give them one? I also didn’t want to set a precedence that they would expect to eat at my house when I know Abby doesn’t get the same consideration at theirs.

I know we are in the holiday season and the season of giving; however, I feel that sharing and giving should be out of the kindness of our hearts instead of an obligation. If it becomes an obligation, the true spirit of giving is lost. We need to teach our children that saying “please” is being polite but it isn’t the magical word to automatically get it. We need to live in a culture in which yes means yes and no means no without comments of being unfair or being mean. Establishing boundaries of giving when we want to protects is from being taken advantage of. If I were to ask a favor, I hope for a yes but I also expect a no. I will be disappointed with a no response but I understand that it is the other person’s right to deny my request. Why aren’t we teaching our children this principle? 

Justice: easier to define, harder to implement

The protests in Ferguson, Missouri over the grand jury decision not to indict the police officer and the cries that justice had not been done got me thinking what is justice? The legal definition of justice is the constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. In other words, justice is about fairness and moral rightness. In our legal system, it is the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals. How do we know when justice has been done? How do we know that the right person was punished?

The image of Lady Justice is a combination of the Roman goddess Justitia and the Greek goddess Themis. She is depicted with a set of scales in her right hand which she measures the strengths of a case’s support and opposition. In her left hand, she holds a double-edged sword which symbolizes the power of Reason and Justice that may be wielded either for or against any party. The Roman and Greek goddesses aren’t blindfolded as Lady Justice is today. The blindfold first appears in the 15th century to represent objectivity. Justice is to be handed out without fear or favor, regardless of identity, wealth, power or weakness.

But is justice really handed out regardless of identity, wealth, power or weakness? No, it isn’t. There are countless of examples where the rich and powerful were able to use the system in order to get what they want. For example, all the rights regarding trials given to us in the Bill of Rights aren’t really given to all citizens. Depending on the crime and the wealth of the defendant, many cases are pushed through the system. One reason being that the court’s dockets are so full that there isn’t enough time to give every case the full extent of the legal rights. Another reason is most defendants don’t have the money to hire an attorney who can effectively argue their case. There are also examples of being rich and powerful is a strike against regardless if any wrongdoing was actually done. For example, the civil lawsuits against big corporations with depictions of the fat cat executives who don’t care that their products are harmful. Is this image true? Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not.

Is justice served because one side got the outcome they wanted? Or is justice served because the wrongdoer got the punishment he or she deserved? According to one article, the goal of justice is make the victim feel equal or whole again (Edmonds July 6, 2010). How does one make the victim feel whole again through the legal system? I can’t imagine the anguish of a family who has lost someone through the actions of someone else. But how does the legal system make them whole again? This is why I believe in this statement: “Justice remains a hard topic to pin down because people often disagree over what they deserve and whether they’ve received it” (Edmonds July 6, 2010). Is justice subjective instead of objective?

In conclusion, our criminal justice system is fallible. It’s fallible because it was designed and is carried out by humans. A human is on the bench as judge, humans serve as attorneys, witnesses and jurors. Humans are fallible. Humans will lie, cheat and forget. I hear the outcry over the Ferguson case and I see the destruction that was caused over the decision. How does violence get the justice you think you deserve? As Pope John Paul II said, “Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create.” Can justice truly be attained? Alfred Nobel didn’t think so, he said “justice is found only in the imagination.” Is justice one of those ideas which will only exist in a perfect society?

Edmonds, Molly. “What is justice?” 06 July 2010 www.howstuffworks.con date retrieved 25 November 2014