What do you think?
Rate this book
The War for Children's Minds
Behind headlines on the conflict in Iraq and global terrorism, a much deeper battle is raging over children and the values they should adopt. Political and religious leaders including Blair and Bush have been joined by the popular press in Enlightenment-bashing and bitter attacks on `liberal parenting calling for a return to authority and religious tradition.
How do we raise good children? How do we make good citizens? In defiant yet acute fashion, Stephen Law urges us to re-evaluate the liberal tradition of thinking about morality. Tackling authoritarian rhetoric head-on, he argues that children should learn about right and wrong, and respect for others, but that their education should be grounded in the hard-won values of the Enlightenment. Taking on neo-conservatives and religious and media commentators, The War for Children‘s Minds is a candid and controversial call for a liberal, philosophically informed approach to raising children.
A staunch defence of the humane, liberal life, The War for Children‘s Minds is a much-needed guide to an urgent moral conundrum.
How do we raise good children? How do we make good citizens? In defiant yet acute fashion, Stephen Law urges us to re-evaluate the liberal tradition of thinking about morality. Tackling authoritarian rhetoric head-on, he argues that children should learn about right and wrong, and respect for others, but that their education should be grounded in the hard-won values of the Enlightenment. Taking on neo-conservatives and religious and media commentators, The War for Children‘s Minds is a candid and controversial call for a liberal, philosophically informed approach to raising children.
A staunch defence of the humane, liberal life, The War for Children‘s Minds is a much-needed guide to an urgent moral conundrum.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published June 6, 2006
10 people are currently reading
151 people want to read
About the author
Stephen Law
69 books104 followersStephen Law is a philosopher who teaches at Heythrop College in the University of London. He also edits the journal THINK, a source of philosophy aimed at the general public, affiliated with The Royal Institute of Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
August 22, 2009
Excellent book that refutes much of the far right propaganda.
July 25, 2014
An important argument but a dull read.
February 14, 2019
Intestering book, I found it to get repetitive towards the end.
August 2, 2022
superb
A short sharp intelligent discussion contrasting a Liberal versus an Authoritarian approach to education. Even in the beginning I could hear both sides especially one side grinding their teeth and sharpening their pencils. The author is especially concerned with moral education and the development of character. He stresses that Liberal doesn’t need to imply relativism though it often does in practice and is usually criticised for that. And also that Liberal does not imply no morals or standards, quite the opposite. There is some discussion of what are the foundations of morality if not religious. He does not follow this to its full conclusion. If there even is one. It's a tough question. He does not say though I would that quite the opposite of being required for morality as is often asserted religion itself is profoundly immoral. That's a whole other book.
He also stresses that Authoritarian doesn’t need to mean Religious but it usually does in practice. His really golden point is that the Authoritarian/Religious tend to argue or at least assert ‘who are you to presume to have your own opinion you must defer to God / Tradition / Authority’. But which god, which tradition, which authority? Unless you blindly accept the ‘team’ you were born into you are going to have to choose which to follow assuming you are so desperate to follow one or the other. So it comes down to your own autonomy of thought and reason in any case.
In my own personal intellectual history I was a dogmatic catholic up until the age of around about ... twelve. What about the other Religions I asked. Well aren’t I just so lucky to have been born into the one that is right. Ugh!! What a repulsive stupid way of thinking. Maybe the question itself, amongst others was the origin of doubt. In authoritarian traditions doubt is not permitted and is firmly and forcefully suppressed. How could this possibly in any way be considered moral decent reasonable behaviour? In earlier times I would have been shown the instruments and ‘persuaded’ to believe, conform, obey, serve. Yeah, not ***** likely. Of course I would have pretended to cave in the short term until I could get way. Not stupid. But what of those who cant get away?
A short sharp intelligent discussion contrasting a Liberal versus an Authoritarian approach to education. Even in the beginning I could hear both sides especially one side grinding their teeth and sharpening their pencils. The author is especially concerned with moral education and the development of character. He stresses that Liberal doesn’t need to imply relativism though it often does in practice and is usually criticised for that. And also that Liberal does not imply no morals or standards, quite the opposite. There is some discussion of what are the foundations of morality if not religious. He does not follow this to its full conclusion. If there even is one. It's a tough question. He does not say though I would that quite the opposite of being required for morality as is often asserted religion itself is profoundly immoral. That's a whole other book.
He also stresses that Authoritarian doesn’t need to mean Religious but it usually does in practice. His really golden point is that the Authoritarian/Religious tend to argue or at least assert ‘who are you to presume to have your own opinion you must defer to God / Tradition / Authority’. But which god, which tradition, which authority? Unless you blindly accept the ‘team’ you were born into you are going to have to choose which to follow assuming you are so desperate to follow one or the other. So it comes down to your own autonomy of thought and reason in any case.
In my own personal intellectual history I was a dogmatic catholic up until the age of around about ... twelve. What about the other Religions I asked. Well aren’t I just so lucky to have been born into the one that is right. Ugh!! What a repulsive stupid way of thinking. Maybe the question itself, amongst others was the origin of doubt. In authoritarian traditions doubt is not permitted and is firmly and forcefully suppressed. How could this possibly in any way be considered moral decent reasonable behaviour? In earlier times I would have been shown the instruments and ‘persuaded’ to believe, conform, obey, serve. Yeah, not ***** likely. Of course I would have pretended to cave in the short term until I could get way. Not stupid. But what of those who cant get away?
February 6, 2020
For a large proportion of the book I was going with 2 stars, but it just scraped up to 3, although I'm not sure how much my level of enjoyment was increased due to a feeling of relief at being near the end.
From this book I learned two key things:
1) I'm a sucker for a book title
2) I prefer science books to philosophy books. I need the data
Essentially I have difficulty with books presenting a straw man argument, regardless of how much it may be the case that the arguments proposed are real. Without the "other side" to make their case it just feels too much like propositions assumed for the sake of the answer the author wants to arrive at.
I had a similar problem with The God Delusion, a book I loved (2nd half at least) because so much time was spent with Dawkins imagining what arguments might be put forward and then dismantling them.
And I find it hard to take a book seriously when words such as "it may not be a comprehensive study, but of my friends no-one.....". It is entirely irrelevant what your friends do or do not believe or how they behave. All this does is serve to make it seems as if you (the author) live in a bubble, rendering your arguments less meaningful.
It was very much less a look at any war for children's minds, and more an overall look at how we approach, or should approach, the idea of morality and how this is best imparted. Not an uninteresting subject (hence the 3 stars) just not what I was expecting.
I was expecting a much wider look at influences on children, from parents, schools, peers, to TV, advertising and beyond. The school and parent elements were really all I got.
From this book I learned two key things:
1) I'm a sucker for a book title
2) I prefer science books to philosophy books. I need the data
Essentially I have difficulty with books presenting a straw man argument, regardless of how much it may be the case that the arguments proposed are real. Without the "other side" to make their case it just feels too much like propositions assumed for the sake of the answer the author wants to arrive at.
I had a similar problem with The God Delusion, a book I loved (2nd half at least) because so much time was spent with Dawkins imagining what arguments might be put forward and then dismantling them.
And I find it hard to take a book seriously when words such as "it may not be a comprehensive study, but of my friends no-one.....". It is entirely irrelevant what your friends do or do not believe or how they behave. All this does is serve to make it seems as if you (the author) live in a bubble, rendering your arguments less meaningful.
It was very much less a look at any war for children's minds, and more an overall look at how we approach, or should approach, the idea of morality and how this is best imparted. Not an uninteresting subject (hence the 3 stars) just not what I was expecting.
I was expecting a much wider look at influences on children, from parents, schools, peers, to TV, advertising and beyond. The school and parent elements were really all I got.
March 20, 2025
🎓 For a book about education, I think over half of it was religion based. Arguments against 𝐀uthoritarianism were pretty good though.
April 14, 2014
I really loved most of this book, in particular the conclusion (well, more of a hypothesis) that a liberal (religious) education is better than an authoritarian. I found myself agreeing with the first two thirds: children should be taught to discuss, debate and question everything and be trusted to realise truth for themselves, rather than be spoon fed it. After all, if truth is truth then it should keep standing whatever you throw at it. This holds true for philosophy as well as religion.
The point was also strongly made that liberalism is not relativism, but means (at least how the author defined it, which is not to say other definitions don't exist) to think clearly and critically. The author spent a lot of time rebutting Melanie Phillips and Jonathan Sacks as two of the main commentators who regularly confuse this point, and so confuse the public.
I liked the way it was shown that the 20th century genocides had little to do with religion vs atheism, but more to do with authoritarianism vs liberalism. There's apparently strong evidence to show that those who risked their lives to save others were overwhelmingly from a liberal background. I found this fascinating.
I felt that some of the points were not properly considered though. For example, the origins of morality were dismissed as being irrelevant in the first instance, and then stated that morality can be explained because it is 'written in our genes' - with just a quick reference to Matt Ridley as proof. I cannot see how absolute morality, which is what the author argues for rather than relativism, is written in our genes, and I think this question should have been discussed a bit more as in my opinion it's highly relevant to the topic.
The point was also strongly made that liberalism is not relativism, but means (at least how the author defined it, which is not to say other definitions don't exist) to think clearly and critically. The author spent a lot of time rebutting Melanie Phillips and Jonathan Sacks as two of the main commentators who regularly confuse this point, and so confuse the public.
I liked the way it was shown that the 20th century genocides had little to do with religion vs atheism, but more to do with authoritarianism vs liberalism. There's apparently strong evidence to show that those who risked their lives to save others were overwhelmingly from a liberal background. I found this fascinating.
I felt that some of the points were not properly considered though. For example, the origins of morality were dismissed as being irrelevant in the first instance, and then stated that morality can be explained because it is 'written in our genes' - with just a quick reference to Matt Ridley as proof. I cannot see how absolute morality, which is what the author argues for rather than relativism, is written in our genes, and I think this question should have been discussed a bit more as in my opinion it's highly relevant to the topic.
February 28, 2010
Can we use reason to accurately shape our morals without slipping into Objectivism?
Can we question traditional authoritarian foundations of morality and still reject the self-defeating ideas of moral relativism?
[Author: Stephen Law] argues that we can, and that we should in fact, educate our children in such a way that they can think for themselves, feeling free to question even the often sheltered foundations of morality in society, and still grow into more intelligent, empathetic and moral adults than would be the result of more traditional authoritarian systems.
While billed as an argument for "Liberal" education, it might be more accurately described as an argument for more critical thinking, logic, and reason in education.
The only thing I found not entirely convincing was Law's insistence that his ideas are not incompatible with religious education. I don't know of many (any?) religious groups that would openly welcome a real critical examination of their faiths and then accept the results of that examination, even if it meant bolstering the worthy moral behaviors some promote at the expense of some of the dogmatic ideologies that wouldn't stand up to such scrutiny.
I have to attribute this to either (1) Law's writing from and to the more secular UK or (2) my own lack of exposure to the more liberal religious that may be open to much looser interpretation of their particular faith that might be found in other areas of the US.
Can we question traditional authoritarian foundations of morality and still reject the self-defeating ideas of moral relativism?
[Author: Stephen Law] argues that we can, and that we should in fact, educate our children in such a way that they can think for themselves, feeling free to question even the often sheltered foundations of morality in society, and still grow into more intelligent, empathetic and moral adults than would be the result of more traditional authoritarian systems.
While billed as an argument for "Liberal" education, it might be more accurately described as an argument for more critical thinking, logic, and reason in education.
The only thing I found not entirely convincing was Law's insistence that his ideas are not incompatible with religious education. I don't know of many (any?) religious groups that would openly welcome a real critical examination of their faiths and then accept the results of that examination, even if it meant bolstering the worthy moral behaviors some promote at the expense of some of the dogmatic ideologies that wouldn't stand up to such scrutiny.
I have to attribute this to either (1) Law's writing from and to the more secular UK or (2) my own lack of exposure to the more liberal religious that may be open to much looser interpretation of their particular faith that might be found in other areas of the US.
May 28, 2013
Some very clear thinking about a tricky subject. This really is necessary reading if you are worried about the moral upbringing of your child and is even more important if you're not! Stephen Law has a clear and concise style and assumes no background in philosophy. After reading this you will have greater appreciation of how important philosophy can be. If you think philosophy is esoteric and irrelevant this book may just change your mind.
January 16, 2008
This book examines the legacy of the Enlightenment as pertains to the education and parenting of children. The author presents a compelling argument for the teaching of philosphy to young students. Apparently it decreases abhorrent social behavior and increases critical thinking which contributes to higher IQ's and academic achievement.
July 25, 2015
Written from a British perspective but plenty here American readers can appreciate. Law is concise and cogent in his arguments that children should be encouraged and taught to have the skills for critical, questioning minds. A valuable book for parents, teachers, and others who have a role in helping children develop sharp, discerning intellects.
April 22, 2009
Really good! Looks at the supposed culture war and the return to Authority based teaching and argues for a Liberal approach while still maintaining authority. It helped clarify, for me, the difference between authority/Authority and liberal/Liberal. Excellent.
October 25, 2012
Just re-read this and liked it better this time. A very useful book for clarifying what a Liberal approach to moral education might look like and a searing critique of relativism and attitudes to Authoritarian approach to moral education growing in the West.
October 23, 2012
One of the most fantastic books I have read about the absolute need to properly educate young people to be critical thinkers!
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews