here are very few children who do not to speak.  Even mentally challenged children typically acquire a considerable measure of fluency in a language.  There is no language so complicated that a child does not come to master that language if she or he is regularly exposed to it, day in and day out, from infancy onward.  And that is the point.  The child has to be regularly exposed to the language day in and day out from infancy onward.  Whatever else is true, it would seem to me that acquiring moral excellence is more like that than not.  And if this right, then there is a way of thinking about the acquisition of moral character that is dead wrong.  As I shall argue, a profound mistake that we make in parenting is to think that issuing directives counts as modeling moral excellence or, in any case, that issuing directives suffices. 

Consider the language model once again.  No child chooses the maternal language that she or he masters.  Indeed, it is not even clear that a child could make that choice.  Rather, the competency that is characteristic of every native speaker is owing to the fact that the child is exposed to the language well-before she or he can speak it.  To be fluent in a language is essentially to know what to say and how to say it correctly without even having to think about it.  To be sure, one may know rules that are applicable.  Being fluent in a language, however, is not a matter of applying the rules very quickly when speaking.  Instead, it is to be able to speak in accordance with the rules without even having to think about the rules at all.

Moral fluency is like that.  But is that even possible even if we hold that moral character at its best is inextricably tied to choice of values?  What seems to me manifestly clear is that by the time most of us are capable of seriously reflecting upon principles and choosing them, it may very well be too late for those principles to become a part of our character in the way that language is a part of our thought.  

And this brings me to parental upbringing in a rather dramatic way.  Parenting at its best has to be about modeling moral excellence.  And a society at its best has to be one whose citizens for the most part model moral excellence.  A child learns a language in what is roughly a two-step manner: parents speak the language; others to whom the child is exposed speak the language.  The acquisition of a morally excellent character surely requires the same two-step process: parents model moral excellence and others to whom the child is exposed model moral excellence.  

Now, what is quite intriguing in all of this is that there are simply no shortcuts that one can take in all of this.  There is no way to make up for children not being exposed to a language on a regular basis, day in and day out.  There are no pills to prescribe or hypnosis to impose.  Nor, in particular, are there any “crash-courses” that we could put a child through that would enable her or him to make up for lost time. 

This seems so obvious when it comes to language that the point has an air of utter boredom and tedium to it.  Only a fool would think otherwise. 

But does not the same point apply to having a morally excellent character?  If it does, then we have something of an explanation for why modern societies are in a crisis.  There is a very profound sense in which acquiring a language is an exceedingly mundane process, as it is simply a matter of day-after-day exposure.  The same, alas, applies to acquiring a morally excellent character.

The difference, of course, is that there is very little human interaction that does involve speaking.  So there is almost no chance of a child not being exposed to the language of her or his community and country. 

But there can be lots of human interaction that manifestly misses the mark when it comes to moral excellence.  And therein lies the problem.  Let me explain.

Animals cannot speak.  Accordingly, the only thing that that adult animals can do is model behavior for their infants.  Much of animal behavior is driven by instinct.  Yet, just how to proceed, as with hunting, often requires some modeling.

Human beings are the only creatures on the face of the earth who can issue directives.  We are also the only creatures on the face of the earth who are capable massive self-deception.  The very thought that issuing directives to our children is good enough is an instance of enormous self-deception on our part.  No directive, however eloquently articulated, can replace parents modeling moral excellence before children. 

The Kantian influence in modern thought gives pride of place to directives given to us by the moral law which we then will ourselves to follow.  This insight, though extraordinarily powerful, misses the reality that nothing on the face of this earth can replace the experiencing of moral excellence on the part of one’s parts.  In particular, nothing whatsoever can replace being the direct beneficiary of experiencing moral excellence on their part.  This means that an at-home-parent has a considerable moral advantage in terms of inculcating moral excellence on the child’s part that no directive can match, no matter how much money is attached to that directive.

Many parents think that when monetary rewards are attached to a directive, this gives the directive an efficacy that it would not otherwise have.  Nonsense.  A directive thus constructed simply gives the child a reason to exhibit the relevant compliance behavior until the monetary reward is secure.  The directive does not in way whatsoever constitute modeling moral excellence on behalf of the child.  It is self-deception that allows us to think that it does.

With an at-home-parent, the child directly witnesses and experiences the way in which the parent exhibits moral excellence.  The child beholds her or his parent choosing in one way rather than another, attaching more importance to one thing rather than another, taking delight in one thing rather than another.  What better way could there be for a child to have what constitutes the Good affirmed in her or his life than to witness her or his loving parent choose what is Good—nay, indeed to participate in that choosing from to time.  This is to give the Good an imprimatur in a child’s life that no mere directive could possibly accomplish.  And it is that imprimatur configured in a child’s life that makes for excellence in moral character: a very intuitive and immediate grasp of what is right, along with a steadfast commitment to doing what is right. 

Thus, acquiring excellence in moral character is much more like acquiring a language than many would suppose.  For much of modernity, parenting is primarily about meeting a child’s basic material needs and then preparing the child to choose her or his own values. 

This sounds wonderful in theory, but it is utterly disastrous in practice.  This is tantamount to rendering a child like a ship without a sale.  Though often gesturing mightily towards the goods, the child frequently misses the mark.  For when it comes to morality, excellence requires not only that we can see the Good but that we are steadfast in realizing it.  And that steadfastness, like fluency in a language, is acquired by being around those who roundly exhibit it.  The arguments are nice, but they do not replace the experience of excellence exhibited by others. 

So it is with fluency in a language; so it is with excellence in moral character.  We are so constituted, biologically, that the first fluency in a language cannot be achieved otherwise.  Alas, it is also the case that we are so constituted, biologically, that with regard to excellence in moral character we are capable of masterfully deceiving ourselves as to what it takes to secure this end. 

Moral directives, like seeds, need fertile soil in which to take root.  To believe otherwise is deceive ourselves and to cheat posterity out of the moral anchor that it needs to flourish.