There are many alternatives and styles to raising children properly. But it is what the person believes is the proper way that can reveal a difference in a child's upbringing. Rousseau believed in a different teaching style that avoided all modern-day teaching techniques. He stated that one must teach their child to live rather than to avoid death. To do this Rousseau wanted to teach his student Emile that to learn he must educate himself and learn from his own experiences. Rousseau did not feel that he should forewarn the child of what was the right or wrong thing to do, rather learn for himself from experience. He avoided teaching moral concepts and therefore morality was not taken advantage of; instead it was truly understood from the child's experience.
I believe that this is an excellent way to teach a child because to teach is not just to tell, but to actually learn and understand something. I agree that to tell a child something is wrong to do or something is good to do will not reflect if the child actually understands. Children should learn for themselves and then they will better understand instead of being curious of why something is the way it is. I will show how this is true by a similar situation to one that Rousseau experimented on Emile. I will demonstrate that teaching moral concepts at a young age will not be efficient for enabling a child to learn. Teaching moral concepts to a child that has no reason will only corrupt him/her and therefore provide a different effect. There are two different things in life children will learn. A child can be taught about things such as history and mathematics and be educated, but a child cannot be taught about morality and be considered educated. Education comes from nature and the experiences one learns in nature and from life.
I will teach a child that watching certain television shows is not good for him because he will get scared and have nightmares.