And all of this has exactly what relevance to the universe being absurd and meaningless?

To the unspiritual rationalist, the foundations of our universe are irrational and meaningless. — Tarskian

Unknown. Judging the unknown irrational and meaningless is irrational. We can only apply reason to that which we know, or think we know.

Hence, atheism comes at an important long-term probabilistic cost. — Tarskian

According to what observable reality?

Explain how your scenarios explicitly are not covered by the three points I posted. You have not done that. — Philosophim

I have done that. Real people, in pain and fear, cannot be unemotional about their situation. Rule 1. bites the dust at the diagnosis of cancer or the repossession of someone's house.

That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. If you don't want to tell anyone that you're thinking of doing it for example, then you shouldn't do it. — Philosophim

That is the most difficult piece of advice, and I have told you why, several times. Other people are also emotional. They can't turn it off just because you tell them to.
Sometimes even people who have discussed end-of-life care go back on their promises when the death of a parent or spouse is imminent. They don't want to let go. If you leave the conversation until decisions actually have to be made, it's even more likely that you're at a physical disadvantage due to illness or injury, and it's not discussion among equals.
Many family members and friends, if you tell them you're contemplating suicide, go ballistic, get religious and righteous on your ass, plead and cry and maunder on about the sanctity of life, then confiscate your meds and have you put in a locked ward, where you are deprived of all means of ending your own pain: you no longer have a choice, freedom or autonomy. I know this from having witnessed it. (One patient was so desperate, she stuffed her bedsheet down her throat.)
So, quite a few of the people trying to figure out when and how dare not tell anyone what they're thinking, can't trust the very people they love.
You may prescribe otherwise, but that's the way it is.

And upgrades to apps that just make them more cumbersome and stupid. Fixing what ain’t broken (or its cousin, upgrades to software.). Annoys the s out of me. Just leave some shit alone for a few years once in a while. — Fire Ologist

YESSS!!!

First try to see if the rational rules I gave can adapt to the situation. If they don't, show me why they don't. — Philosophim

That is what I have been attempting to do. Your rules apply in some cases, but do not cover many of the likely scenarios that real people in the real world have to face.

Show me you're thinking about the discussion instead of peppering me with questions you haven't tried to solve on your own first. — Philosophim

I have solved them for myself. I cannot; nor can you, for anyone else. We can have opinions about their situation, we can even judge them, but we can't persuade them to think as we do.

No, I think your posting random scenarios without thinking about how they play in what has been discussed so far is silly. — Philosophim

Point is, they're not random. They are all too real and too common.

Apply what I've noted to your scenarios, then point out why they do not work. — Philosophim

Did that, too. I've been in your perspective, but that was a long time ago.

Ignoring what I've said and just bulldozing ahead to specific scenarios without analysis to what's already been said is disorganized, and ignores what I've stated so far. — Philosophim

You keep stating the same thing over and over. I didn't ignore it; I pointed out where it doesn't apply.

Sure, it would be nice to think everyone can contemplate their own debility, suffering and death unemotionally, and that everyone has many friends and relatives, all available for consultation, all able to assess the situation and think clearly.
This may sometimes be the case; it is not the norm.

Look, are you just going to keep inventing scenarios for every answer I give? — Philosophim

Nope. Just mentioning the realities you didn't take into account.

A. My friends and family care about me.
Therefore they cannot think rationally about me. — Philosophim

Not what I said. I said not all families are able to think clearly or unemotionally when it comes to the potential death of a loved one. Nor are they always in agreement. Families vary.

A fierce, highly public battle took place between her parents....and her husband... Terri's husband argued that his wife would not have wanted her life artificially prolonged, with no hope of recovery.

It's rarely a news item, but this happens quite a lot in families, whether the patient is able to participate or not.

I'm going to one up your silliness. — Philosophim

You think old age, illness, disability and despair are silly? Implausible? I hope you have a long wait to find out.

"Too hard" is an emotion. — Philosophim

Ever have bone cancer?
Most people cannot abide by your rules.

The problem is that your question fundamentally makes no sense when taken as a whole: if it is just a question on "purely pragmatic" grounds, then there is no right answer — Bob Ross

That would be true, if that had been my question.
If what I did ask makes no sense to you, I'm sorry, but I can't change that.

In terms of a legal question, all legalities stem back to morality; unless you are asking just for what particular legal systems (that currently exist) consider a legally permissible form of suicide (and not what people think should be legally permissible). — Bob Ross

The Christian-based law is a whole other can of brainworms. Starting with : Where does a judge or legislator get off telling an autonomous adult what is permissible to do with his own life?
That's why I left consideration of the law out of individual opinion. There are and have been many different legal determinations on this subject. In some countries, and some states, the law has recently been changed, because of what the majority of voters think should be permissible.

If these people are not invested in your well being, don't rely on them. — Philosophim

Only, they are invested. Deeply. They just have very different points of view and beliefs. I've come across relatives with the power of attorney who absolutely forbade measures the patient herself requested. In that case, the medical staff is bound by the law.

again, this is an irrational response. Of course there are people who can't think rationally. Don't rely on those people. But don't shun your family and friends and think they can't be rational because they care about you. That's foolish. — Philosophim

No, it's a factual response. If the people who don't think the same way you do are your family, with the power to decide your fate - as in a life-support situation - consulting them is foolish. Friends may be a different story, assuming you have friends who are still ambulatory and compos - many old people have run out of friends through attrition.
Yes, it's a good idea to discuss your end-of-life decisions with reasonable people who are on your side. Sometimes that's down to professional caregivers.

You go to multiple people. — Philosophim

You're in a wheelchair or hospital bed, housebound. You go no place. Maybe you can use a computer and have one; maybe you can still see the screen and keyboard. Or not.
People come to you, if they're willing, or they shun you because you smell bad and remind them of their own mortality.

You have a clear grasp of best-case hypothetical, but not so much of the practical reality of people close to death.

An isolated mind is not smart or a genius. — Philosophim

Some are. But it doesn't take genius to decide whether your own life, or the anticipated future, is worth your continued attendance.

Then lets leave the physical capabilities out of it. — Philosophim

Can't. They - or rather the lack of them - are the most common of rational reasons. They're not part of the question; they're part of the answer.

Rationally you want people who are invested in your well being in the picture. — Philosophim

For some people, that's fine. Some families discuss end-of-life decisions long before the situation arises; they have time to prepare mentally and emotionally.
Other people are, unfortunately, stuck with religious, volatile, sentimental, emotion-driven relatives, with whom you can't discuss anything serious.
Your parents are smart and lucky. Do were we, with my mother. But everybody isn't us.

Thinking everyone who cares about you means they can't think clearly, is not rational. — Philosophim

Not everyone, but many.

A rational mind understands that an isolated mind is much less capable then a good group of people with a common purpose. — Philosophim

Maybe so. But who says all the minds in a given situation are rational? Or that the person who has a rational reason for one particular decision isn't emotional about his relationships? He might want to protect his wife from the stigma, or his children from the guilt, or his family's reputation in a religious community. Every person has a different set of circumstance and a different mind-set.

f you don't have the capability to ask your doctor, then you're not being rational in a decision to commit suicide. — Philosophim

What? If your throat is blocked by a feeding tube, you can't think?

You can kill yourself but can't ask a doctor? — Philosophim

All you need is a finger on the button that controls the morphine feed and permission to use it.

But my question wasn't about physical capabilities. It was only about reasons.

That being said, these are decisions you really cannot make on your own, and need other rational people to analyze the situation with you. — Philosophim

Where do you find these rational people in this situation? Not family members: they're emotional and have their own self-interest to consider - from both sides. If you talk about the burden your continued incapacity will place on them, they feel pressured to demur, say they'd rather have you than the money or free time or use of the living room, even though they secretly wish you had died in the accident and feel guilty as hell about that.
Then, too, family has the power to put you in a mental institution, just for thinking about it. Of course, that can't happen if you're already in hospital on life support; the worst they can do is send a psychiatric resident to come and talk to you. And he's not an impartial consultant.
Friends may also be too emotionally involved.
You could take a chance on your doctor, I guess. If you have the ability to speak intelligibly.

How can anyone answer this if you are precluding ethics from the discussion? Isn't this fundamentally an ethical question? — Bob Ross

I was asking it as pragmatic question. Or a legal one, if one were to make an argument in court.

If you objection is about your own ethical beliefs, you can simply say: "My belief system doesn't acknowledge any valid reasons for suicide." or "It's just wrong." or "I can't deal with this issue rationally." or nothing at all.
If it's about the potential suicide's ethics, he or she has to contend with them alone, while contemplating their options. We, onlookers, however, can be more objective.

"are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide?
This is vacuously true. That the cookie monster created the universe is a logically sound argument. — Bob Ross

My question was not an argument. Neither is the vacuous postulation about the universe.

I would say it is only silly or frivolous relative to what is actually good; which you precluded from the discussion. — Bob Ross

"What is actually good" in your book is unknown to me. I don't have the capacity to take all points of view on good and evil into account.
By frivolous, I simply mean something like a teenager in a snit slitting his wrists to make his parents sorry for treating him as they did. By silly I mean another teenager who jumps off the balcony because her schoolmates posted embarrassing photos of her in the internet.

Should other people intervene?
This is a moral question. — Bob Ross

Yes, if you like. It's a question about your opinion.

If I just know what is right and make observations and experience then where does asking questions for advice come in? Why deliberate about what is right if I just know what is right? — Moliere

I meant that I am speaking from observation and experience, not according to what some guy wrote in 400BC or 1642AD. It's okay to quote philosophers - I just choose not to. This a matter of personal taste.
You don't 'just know'. You learn, reflect, consider, weigh one doctrine against another, advice against your own inclination, loyalties against self-interest, negotiate with others, the environment, the culture and yourself. At any point in your life, you hold some beliefs and convictions about what's right. you act on them. Later, you may question those beliefs and adjust those convictions according to new things you learn.

Seems a bit much to me. I like to know why other people do things. Sometimes they have a point. — Moliere

So, ask them. Every time you get a coherent answer, you learn something about motivation. Every time you get an incoherent answer, you learn something about human nature. Every time you get a punch in the nose, you learn when not to ask questions.

These are ways of reflecting on choices, not answers to choices. — Moliere

Bingo!

Sounds to me like there's no philosophy to be had at all in your view, then. Follow your heart and do your best between the competing desires until you no longer have to or can. — Moliere

Well there was that little bit about principles, convictions and knowing what's right. But no philosophy - just observations and experience.

So, what do you do if you suspect your child of having committed a crime?

Act against your fellow man's right to expression, — Outlander

Nobody has! Bitching infringes on on no fellow's right to expression - it is expression.

'preciate it!

The devil in the details I see here will be "OK, but when are we stupid, destruct, or spiteful? — Moliere

Only you know your own emotions.

It's never going to boil down to one simple rule. It's all very well for the ubermensch to do whatever he wants and assume it will always be morally right, but the rest of us are all the time having to conduct these messy negotiations between how we feel and what we think, what we believe and what the law says, what's good for us and what's good for someone we care about, what we've accepted and begun to doubt, what's ideal and what's practical, what we want and what we ought, what we aspire to and what we're capable of.

You just work your way through it, case by case, day by day.
Then you die.

So follow our heart? — Moliere

When it's not being stupid, destructive or spiteful.

Suicide is not always irrational. That's the only point I was making. — creativesoul

You don't have to convince me! While I would not want to live in a culture that values 'honour' -whatever they think that means - over life and happiness, I have my own exit strategy in case of certain foreseeable eventualities.

I suppose the part I'm missing here is: where is the adult?
We are influenced by what we grow up around. — Moliere

We are influenced by the adults who guide us through youth, by our peers, by the media which present us with a sense of our culture, by our academic and religious education, by our own aspirations and what's required to attain them, by role models and heroes, and in adulthood, by a spouse, if we're lucky enough to get one who engages our intellect.
The more clever among us are also greatly influenced by books, especially in the formative first two decades, but later, too. As I mentioned, that begins with fairy tales in early childhood and progresses to adult literature. Why, some young people even read philosophy! I myself was impressed with Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in my late teens. (I got over it.)

So, what ought we to do? Whatever our mother told us?

In some cases, that's not a bad idea. What we ought to do is whatever we believe to be right at the time of decision. On most of those occasions, we'll chicken out or compromise or fudge, because the principled action is too dangerous, difficult, expensive, uncomfortable, unpleasant or inconvenient.
If we live up to our highest expectations once in ten tries, we're doing pretty well.

If I'm antagonistically related to this or that ethical principle and am both at once then I'd prefer to either let go of the emotion or the ethical principle or rectify it in some manner. — Moliere

You know from experience that the antagonism is not the usual state of affairs. Most of the time, your heart tells you the same thing your head knows is right.
We have a great many emotions. Some of them are antisocial, and therefore urge us to commit acts we know to be wrong. Also, there are some rules of social behaviour that are inconsistent and self-contradictory. (Because everybody has a lot of different feelings about a lot of different things and they can't always be categorized neatly.) Sometimes you have to pick your way through a dark labyrinth of desires, impulses, injunctions, principles, sentiments and conscience.

You may be very angry at someone, but you know you should not kill them. That's the extreme example, where ethics generally triumphs over emotion, and we're all a little safer because of that.

If the person believes the only way to rid themselves of misery is to end their own life, and they choose to commit suicide, then that is a completely rational choice. I do not see how false hope plays a role here — creativesoul

The hope is that all suffering will end with life. It's false if there is a judgmental afterlife, in which suicide is against the law.

That said, I suspect there are - sometimes - multiple other ways to rid oneself of misery, but that is definitely context dependent. — creativesoul

Sometimes there are other means - or would be, if they were made available to the person contemplating death. But there are situations in which that person is powerless to affect change in their circumstances. (I'm thinking prisoner in some benighted country or terminally ill or catastrophically injured patient. those are extreme situations, but they're the simple fact of life for many thousands.)

But so far all I've been given here the relationship to mothers as a kind of point of departure for thinking ethically, at least conceptually — Moliere

Primary caregiver - not necessarily the mother, but usually - in the first two years makes the deepest impression on a child's perception of the world and its own place in the world, yes. Just because she's walking on virgin sand, with no other footprints.

which seems to me to indicate that the mothers are not all the Others, but that there is a community that is much wider than the family unit. — Moliere

Didn't I mention siblings, playmates, pets and pre-school? There may be other people in the community who become significant, but in the first four years, the child's life is pretty much surrounded by family.
Later comes school, teams, scouts, church or whatever. And reading - although that's not usually significant until age 12 or so, but stories can also make an impression, as they often carry a moral message.

t seems to me that what we were as children isn't as important to what we are now — Moliere

On the contrary. It's crucial. Often decisive. That's why churches start indoctrinating very young children in Sunday school, why Olympic athletes and world-class musicians begin training discipline at age 6-9.

Aren't the two linked? Ethics and emotion? — Moliere

Linked, yes, but very often as antagonists wrestling.

we ought not expect others to follow any moral precept.
How is that not, thereby, itself a moral precept? — Banno

It has the word 'ought' in it; that's a dead giveaway.

I think there is no lack of melody in todays pop, — hypericin

I'm not sure what 'today's' pop is. I may be hearing yesterday's over the PAS of stores - granted, not the best audio quality.
If there are melodies, they last about three bars max and are anyway overwhelmed by loud percussion. Experts may find great virtuosity in the arrangements, but I can't hear it.
If there are lyrics, they tend to be an endless repetition of one or two phrases that make no sense to me, by the same one or two voices overlaid several times.
I'm just too old to appreciate the musicality.

The poor employees have to endure the literal torture of being force fed this drek 8 hours a day. — hypericin

They tell me they don't hear it after a while. Every now and then, when some young, healthy, prosperous performer wails overhead about their misery, I look up and say "For heaven's sake, get over yourself and do something useful!" The other aged customers smirk under their beards; the stock-boys stare at me uncomprehending. (It's okay; until quite recently, I was wearing a parrot's beak mask. My family's reputation is safe.)

A life lived to please one's mother sounds alright enough, — Moliere

No, it doesn't!!! I wasn't talking about a life lived to please one's mother. I was talking about a single decision to defer to her want over one's own. Maybe tomorrow, another such decision - to do what one is asked without coercion; maybe in the next several years, one or two every day; maybe even volunteering to help in the garden, wear the new shoes to an aunt's wedding, do one's homework, be polite to the fat lady who pinches one's cheeks. Probably, between ages 13 and 18, hardly any at all (that's most boys; most girls are more compliant or sneakier). Later on, it depends on how close the relationship is. Some children become estranged from their parents; some remain dependent; some stay in close touch; some come only when they want something... Relationships between parents and children are variable.

Isn't ethical maturity reached by coming to see your parents' as equally human, weak, and pathetic as yourself? And loving them anyways, in spite of the flaws you know all too well? — Moliere

Ethical maturity isn't necessarily predicated on the child-parent relationship. Many people never reach it at all: though they part from their parents, they follow gurus, heroes and idols and never make decisions of their own or ask why the rules are what they are.

Loving people is not an ethical decision; it's an emotional fact. What you do for parents at any given moment, in any given situation, those may be ethical decisions at any age. Calling every Tuesday to see if they're all right. Listening to your father's jokes the seventeenth time. Praising the fruitcake you never really liked. Spending Christmas with them instead of going to Bermuda. Driving the old lady to her bridge game when it's really not convenient. Taking a weekend to install a wheelchair ramp. If you love people, most of these decisions are not ethical - you just do things to make them safe and happy, because their safety and happiness matters to you.

Growing up is this process of taking on cares outside of the self, no? — Moliere

Of course. You start caring about your siblings, pets and playmates quite early. By the time they're ready for pre-school, children should be emotionally mature enough and socialized enough to compromise between their own wants and the wants of other people, as well to know right from wrong in terms of social mores.

Why do you think the younger child is not able to figure out what the older child does concerning the balancing of wants? Is it as simple as selfish needs being primary, or is the dichotomy between ‘self’ and ‘other’ too simplistic a way of treating the nature of motivation? — Joshs

The ages were picked arbitrarily: obviously, there is some variation in the rate at which children develop. There is also variation in the innate temperament of children: some are observant and patient; some are impetuous and headstrong; some are more selfish, some more generous.
'Self', 'outside self' and 'other' are recognized very early, in the first weeks of infancy, as the baby experiences privation. Whereas, before birth, all of its needs were automatically met without it ever feeling a want, now, food and warmth and comfort come from outside.... and sometimes the baby has to express its need for them. It has to learn to communicate. That's awareness of another sentient, responsive being.

For a long time - which is to say a baby's entire lifetime, its whole experience of the world - all of the wants are broadcast outward and the response comes from out there, from one or more caregivers, whose only function , as far as the baby knows, is to fulfill its own wants. Nothing is asked of the baby. Where would it get the idea that the others also have wants? Yet, even so, most babies - eight, nine months old - come up spontaneously with the idea of giving to another, sharing their food or offering their toys. I suppose it's a mirror response to being given things and offered things. And there is gratification in the positive response, the praise and petting when others are pleased with its behaviour.

It doesn't take a great leap of reason for a child to understand that other people are like themselves - separate individuals: the realization grows gradually, with varied experience and interaction. So, when they have acquired enough language to understand verbal requests, commands, warnings and admonitions, they are able to formulate an appropriate response.

I'm just trying to understand how to pragmatucally apply the Taoist morality presented in the OP. — Hanover

Sorry. I have no idea. I have no concept of a society in which we're not supposed to judge one another's behaviour.

I'm inclined to agree. I long for the stone age when songs had melody and lyrics.
(Although, I do recall that in 1966 another roomer in the house had her little heart broken and kept playing the Barbara Streisand recording of 'Autumn Leaves', over and over and over and over, for a week. It annoyed me very nearly to the brink of homicide.)

As I understand it, because Bob is an incel, and they're just poor, socially awkward, misunderstood boys who have been traumatized by rejection from women. You have to understand his needs.

Sometime down the line we may want to care for others, though. Or at least want more than one thing and have to make a choice. — Moliere

That would be about age two. The toddler wants to stay up and eat candy. His mother tells him it's time to go to bed. The toddler wants his mother to keep caring for him. What she wants is suddenly an issue. He'll hold out for what he wants, as long as there is a chance she will let him. But if she's adamant, he has to make a choice between short- and long-term desires.

By age three, it actually matters whether his mother takes care of him because she wants to or just because she has to. It begins to matter what she wants. He can "be good for Mommy" if he tries. By six, he often offers to do something he doesn't really want to, just to please her. (Remember, she's already done 5000 things she didn't really want to, just to please him. He's figuring that out. Now, we have a loving relationship between two individuals - a whole new dynamic of balancing wants.)

Assuming what you want is harmless and nobody would mind, if only they understood it, yes. It's an effective strategy as long as what you want is to live 'under the radar'.
As for other infractions, if it has no observable results, you can get away with some actions that are not approved. People do that every day, everywhere. They show up late for work and pretend to have been in the bathroom, take office supplies home, cheat on their taxes, steal flowers from cemeteries, park in the handicapped space, speed on the highway, kill rich elderly relatives - all kinds of sneaky things that might have unpleasant consequences if they're caught.

Well, not entirely. Sometimes it also depends on what others want. — Banno

Of course. Each one of the others is also a 'you'.
Some of the other people may be powerful and influential, in which case, their wants trump yours. I wasn't thinking of a dictatorial situation, because if you live in one of those, you are very much aware of what you are allowed to want.

In a community or larger society, there is prevailing belief system, principles on which the laws, rules, regulations and mores are based, to which all members are required to adhere. Even if they individually disagree with some aspects of the system, they have either overtly or tacitly agreed to abide by its rules. They all know that infractions will be met with disapprobation, ranging from a scowl to lethal injection.

So, if what you want is against a law, you probably shouldn't do it because you can anticipate formal retribution of some kind. If what you want is against a moral precept, whether you should do it or not depends on how much you need the community's support. If what you want conflicts with the desires of a neighbour, you should weigh the foreseeable consequences against the immediate satisfaction. if what you want offends someone's sensibilities, you should consider how much you care about that person's opinion of you. If what you want is a matter of indifference to your fellow citizens, go ahead; there are no obstacles to consider.

And why shouldn't you do what you want? — Banno

That depends entirely on what you want.

So I'm attached to an image of myself as a good person and furthermore that image is attached to guilt whenever what I do does not match that image within this particular ethical framework where guilt is attached to principle or character. — Moliere

Yes, that. Not merely the image of being a good person - because both image and good are fickle words, subject to change and interpretation and POV. If I have set a standard of behaviour for myself regarding other living things and the environment, my responsibilities or promises, whenever I fail to meet that standard, I'm disappointed in myself. If my sub-standard behaviour hurt another feeling entity, I feel guilt.
Specifically for that transgression - causing distress to some person or animal who didn't deserve it - and for no other, not for breaking a rule or failing in an assigned obligation.

So they have to internalise that identity and fight against themselves to placate those upon whom their life depends. — unenlightened

Yup. Just as those others have to adjust to them. That's how societies work - or, failing that, stop working.

To be blunt, why should I worry about your problems with and suspicions about my ideas. I'm not asking you to endorse them or change your own understanding of morality. — T Clark

You absolutely shouldn't give a proverbial. Thank you for being blunt.

I haven't heard of elderly putting drugs on their bucket list, have you? — Shawn

Well, just the one...

In my understanding, and I think Chuang Tzu's and Lao Tzu's, any socially influenced "reliable self-governance," no matter how benign, will result in us losing sight of our intrinsic virtuosities. Whenever we act to gain a benefit - love, approval, success - or avoid a negative consequence - guilt, shame, punishment - we lose our way. — T Clark

To me "intrinsic virtuosities." is problematic, if not suspect. How do you tell intrinsic from extrinsic? How does your heart sort out the sentiments you've learned and internalized from the ones you extrapolated from all the stuff you've experienced, learned and internalized? How do you trace the origin of all your ideas, ideals, convictions and beliefs? How do you decide which is a virtuosity, which is a conceit and which is a delusion?
I have some recollection of how I came by my present convictions, and they differ very little from the ones I held at age 15, 20, 30 and 45. Really, the only difference is my ability to articulate and advocate for them.

I can't punish, because the only difference between him and me is that fate was kinder in my case. — frank

Judgment is necessary. But is punishment? Is it even useful? Might it not be enough to stop the destructive person, and if you can't rehabilitate him, kill him - quickly, efficiently, painlessly if at all possible. For less egregious offenses than devastating countrysides and exterminating populations, there might be other, less drastic remedies: rehabilitation should at least be attempted.
Then, there are destructive behaviours that go unpunished, because no law, no judgment can touch the perpetrators.

For me that raises the question of when the principles of self-governance I've described are applied. — T Clark

I think it starts around age 10. Children who have previously expressed self-centered demands for autonomy now begin to question the validity of their parents' stand on moral issues. ("But you told me to say you're not home. That was lie!") These moments are good opportunities to discuss the difference between their society's stated values and its values in practice, ethics and etiquette, conformity and rebellion, infractions and compromises - all the difficult issues that makes parents so uncomfortable and children glaze over with boredom. By 18 or 19, bright young people will have worked out an ethical system for themselves, its rationale and and why it differs in some respects from the current norm.

The person who has gone through this process is more or less out of touch with what I have called their intrinsic virtuosities. — T Clark

Not necessarily. Yes, if they were indoctrinated in a strict religious dogma. It's a very hard struggle for them. But children who have been gradually given more autonomy, and opportunities to exercise good judgment, sportsmanship, altruism, deferred gratification, disciplined pursuit of goals, etc. can make the transition to reliable self-governance without too many ructions. (I don't include fighting off the controlling, protective impulse of parents - that's always a bit rocky.)

As I understand it, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were writing for that person to show an alternative way of living, a way out of the bind caused by social expectations. — T Clark

So have other philosophers, sages, shamans and prophets. It's good to pay attention. But ultimately, only you know your own core values; only you can form your own convictions.

I'm resistant to Freudian notions because I think they're false, in a plain and simple way. — Moliere

I also think many are wrong or partly wrong - not false, exactly. But that's another topic for another day.

Gotto love philosophers!

"Be good for Mummy!" Here it starts; the helpless dependent child is told to be what they are not. — unenlightened

Because, if they are allowed to be what they are - egocentric predators - until puberty, they will be ostracized by their peers, imprisoned or killed by law enforcement agents. You can't have a society of toddlers in adult bodies - that's a purposeless mob.
So the mother appeals to the social aspect of the child - that part of his personality which craves affection, validation and approval. Later in life, he will be good for his playmates and gain acceptance; be good for the teachers and avoid punishment, learn, grow up successfully in his world and be good for an employer so that he earns a living, be good for a female counterpart and win a mate, be good for his community and be accorded respect.
It's not such a bad bargain.