Comments on: Reflections on the ethics of Santa

By: Amod Lele

Amod Lele — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 00:14:47 +0000

Worth noting. It's a real confirmation of Michael's point here, which I agree with: there's more to Christmas than just a combination of Christianity and commercialism. Related points came up in my discussion with Ben on the previous Christmas post.

By: Caitlin

Caitlin — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:46:53 +0000

My understanding is that Saturnalia, the Roman holiday that formed some basis for the Christmas celebration, involved the giving of presents. A quick check of Wikipedia supports this (search for “saturnalia et sigillaricia”).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

By: Amod Lele

Amod Lele — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:14:45 +0000

Hmm, a historical question I hadn’t thought about here: does the practice of gift-giving at the solstice predate Christianity?

By: Amod Lele

Amod Lele — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:11:48 +0000

This is a good point, probably a more significant criticism than the ones on PEA Soup. I suppose it’s primarily a criticism of the “naughty or nice” idea – the idea that Santa doesn’t give gifts to children who behave poorly – which doesn’t really have to be a part of the Santa myth in the first place. (I don’t recall my parents ever saying anything to the effect.) As an argument for a more (unitarian?) universalist sort of Santa, it works well.

By: michael reidy

michael reidy — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:27:29 +0000

First of all, not everything about Xmas is Christian and the bit that is left over is not therefore commercialism. The origins of Santa or Santy (Ireland) go back to Odin. It takes place after the winter solstice at the time when the slight increase in the length of the day is noticible. Spring is coming and the bounty of the earth will once again be laid before us by the benign deity who oversees the economy of the cosmos. The year is very young so the attention is naturally turned towards our young and the promise that they embody. The natural way to celebrate that is by the exchange of gifts and in the case of children the source of the gift is the cosmic bounty itself. Agnostic adults infected by the virus of grim theodicy are now unable to make that magical leap which is a sign of pure trust and hope. Children can and we should leave it to them. Consider it as an inoculation.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 18:39:46 +0000

Your thoughts on “naughty” and “nice”, rewards and denial thereof, piqued my attention there.

First off, do you know of any parents ever, who denied their children christmas gifts due to naughtiness?

More importantly, such things do NOTHING to teach a child. An annual gift based on a general average naughtiness level of some kind? If you wish to reward or deny reward, it only has educational value if done swiftly, with a clear cause and effect link between the act and the reward.

For animals, punishment and reward have to be given swiftly- the recommended time limit is about 2 seconds, for it to have any effect as training. The timeframe is not quite that restricted for humans, but the idea is the same. If you point out the history of cause and effect, that might help; it seems like it would, on conscious/cognitive levels. But that seems like the kind of intentional self-behavior-modification that humans aren’t so great at. To have the visceral, behavioral link between action and consequence, they have to come close together. Offering a once-a-year reward (or non-reward) for general behavior is just about the worst imaginable way to teach a child to be good.