OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics
Economics Education Ethics Foreign Policy Government History Politics Religion Science


Should efforts by made to stump out Halloween?

ChristianKl          1 November 2015 10:05 AM


On Halloween a person A asks another person B to either give them a gift "treat" or suffers a punishment "trick". Commonly that dynamic is called extortion.

If we think about what cultural values we want to teach children on special holidays, I think nobody would write "extortion" in his braimstorming list. Even people who consider it fun to extort other people wouldn't write in down.

At the same time our society allowed the custom to spread. We shouldn't. We shouldn't cooperate with it by teaching our children to engage in it. We should neither cooperate with it by handing out treats, or even opening the door.

Children themselves are likely to be too young to be persecuted for extortion. Their parents however might not be.



Would you like to read similar articles in the future?
      
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
 

                  Post Comment                   




Recommended for You Optimates Populares Centrists

Show comments            Sort by        



aliad 1 November 2015 08:01 PM
78%

I think modify rather than stomp out would be a better strategy. In many neighborhoods it's already becoming customary to only go to lighted or decorated houses. Suppose you combine this with a campaign to change to catchphrase from "trick-or-treat" to "candy for costumes" or something like that. You could then present the lesson to kids that they are taking up the offer of a voluntary exchange of candy for looking cute in a costume.

Then you're not a party pooper how trying to stop people having fun with dressing up and eating candy, you're only targeting the 'trick' part of the tradition which is pretty marginal already.


stars0
Reply



Dahlen 3 November 2015 10:05 AM
77%

This is the first time I've ever seen advocacy against Halloween that wasn't put in terms of religious moral panic (that it encourages devil worship, just like rock music and fantasy fiction), or nationalist anti-globalisation panic (stupid Americans with their made-up consumerist holidays).

Around here, Halloween usually means themed parties in local nightclubs, or kids asking their parents to buy them scary masks. Sweets and the associated means of obtaining them aren't given much thought; that practice hasn't caught on. Trick-or-treating is best suited to a suburban housing pattern, and doesn't work well in large cities for simple reasons (door phones blocking access to non-residents in apartment buildings). I say, don't worry too much about it.


stars0
Reply



Alice 1 November 2015 11:26 AM
73%

Many of today's holidays and traditions have originated from things we cannot celebrate today. The passover seder explicitly mentions the killing of the first-born Egyptian children as one of the 10 plagues. I'm sure one can find more examples if one tries. But we don't put this kind of meaning into these traditions and rituals anymore. It is completely up to us what meaning we associate with them. In this way we change the traditions as we continue to observe them, which I think is the whole point.

I don't think anyone feels threatened by the trick-or-treat requests today.


stars0
Reply


Silent Cal 6 November 2015 03:00 PM
76%

Nitpick here, the Passover seder also explicitly states that the plagues are not being celebrated. On the contrary, a drop of wine is spilled for each plague as a symbol of reducing the Passover celebration in recognition of the suffering that was necessary to bring it about.

stars0
Reply


Alice 7 November 2015 10:08 AM
71%

OK - I didn't know about this. Good to know.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 2 November 2015 08:04 AM
58%

I don't think anyone feels threatened by the trick-or-treat requests today.
Do you think that everybody who gives out gifts when a request happens wants to give out them and doesn't feel like he's forced to do so?

Do you think that cases where children play pranks of people for not giving them sweats don't exist?

stars0
Reply


Alice 2 November 2015 04:59 PM
78%

Do you think that everybody who gives out gifts when a request happens wants to give out them and doesn't feel like he's forced to do so?


I don't understand this. Just don't open the door. Also where I live, unless you put a lit-up pumpkin or other such signs near your front door, nobody will bother you. This is completely voluntary. I never heard of children playing pranks on people who don't give them sweets, but maybe it's just me.

stars0
Reply


atroche 2 November 2015 08:04 PM
76%

If they feel forced into it, it's not by threat of punishment from the children, but by the need to conform.

stars0
Reply


DanielLC 2 November 2015 02:07 PM
70%

> Do you think that everybody who gives out gifts when a request happens wants to give out them and doesn't feel like he's forced to do so?

People will often feel pressured when asked to so something. But I see no reason why you'd single Halloween out, rather than saying "Don't ask anyone to do anything, ever."

> Do you think that cases where children play pranks of people for not giving them sweats don't exist?

I'm sure they exist. Tons of things happen. I just don't think they're frequent enough to worry about.

stars0
View Replies (2)
Reply



Fwiffo 2 November 2015 08:41 AM
55%

"tit-for-tat" isn't a super immoral or maladaptive mindset to teach.

I think people are responsive for optout strategies if they are employed before the door is opened.

There is also a case that things are expected of children. Demonstrating that adults are also capable of living up to obligations towards children fosters trust. A lot of benefits chilren receive are not super relevant to their daily lifes. They can complain about having to go to school. However candy is something they get how it was caused by someone in their community and how they are the beneficiaries of it. Having a sense that he public is on your side instead of against you can be important. You don't want anon to say to you "expect us". A wife can complain that "you take me for granted". In a same sense "thanks for not performing pranks on me 24/7 for 364 days" can be important.


stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 2 November 2015 01:22 PM
65%

"tit-for-tat" isn't a super immoral or maladaptive mindset to teach.
I don't see any "tit-for-tat" in Halloween.
Tit-for-tat is that you treat someone well if they treat you well or treat them badly if they treat you badly.

Children don't give anything in return for the candy they receive and at the same time the not giving something when a stranger nocks on your day isn't a hostile action.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 3 November 2015 07:18 AM
59%

Participating in the halloween by showing up all dressed up can be seen as a co-operative move.

The outcomes don't need to be negative for there to be a prisoners dilemma like situation. When choosing Cooperation or Defection there is no option of empty vote.

The logic behind actually following up with the threat of trick treats the refusing as defection. The logic of being sad about playing the game compares it to a version where one doesn't have to play (in a way its a game like global thermonuclear war where the only winning move is not to play). But if the game is positive sum the principle of not harming others would also speak against taking halloween away from children. But that some party is hurt by a contract doesn't mean it is automatically a bad deal to have around (but i guess it needs to be compensated to have other deals where the suckers of this deal ... read more


stars0
View Replies (1)
Reply