Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

So I guess the issue is that you reject attributing this behviour to children because even if it's more prevalent for young children there exists a better explanation ie using violence or anger to get one's way is morally bad?

If they get their way, what's the point of violence & anger? But they don't, do they? So I want a deeper explanation: why is someone in a situation where they seemingly want something impossible, and futilely hurt themselves when they don't get it? This can't have evolved, right?

Cries presumably evolved to signal distress to a parent. But when a child learns that crying can be used as a means of obtaining what they want in all situations and this is reinforced by the parents it leads to legitimising certain behaviour.

Sort of. But that's again a backwards way of putting it. Here's an intuition pump: Think what you'd guess a husband is really doing, if he says that very thing about his wife.

I think what your getting at is that it's the husband who is in the wrong for allowing violence to become the only recourse?

Yes, but it's only an intuition pump, not an exact analogy. Spouses should indeed have an equal relationship, but parents have far more obligations to their children than vice-versa, or to each other.

Spouses also have roughly equal intelligence and capacity to delay gratification. Children are very stupid and short sighted. A responsible parent does not allow children to harm themselves in enjoyable ways (see: the all-cookie diet). This is upsetting to the child.

If you provide a child with something like sugar — a superstimulus even many adults can't consume in moderation — and then take them someplace with familiar treats visible but out of reach, yes, the typical child *will* be upset. Predictably. So who's fault is it when it happens?