To abandon the child to the natural consequences of his moral
actions would be even more harmful, for very often we must separate
the child from his fault. This is true in a double sense. In the
first place, we are concerned chiefly in removing the child's
faults, as a physician seeks to separate a patient from his
sickness. But we must also avoid the error of identifying any fault
with the fundamental nature of the child; that is, we must keep
before us the character of the child as distinct from the wrong acts
which the child may commit. If a child lies, that does not make of
him a liar, any more than does his failure to understand what he has
just been told make of him a blockhead. Yet the natural consequence
of lying, for instance, is to be mistrusted in the future--to be
branded a liar. This, however, is one of the worst things that can
happen to a child, and one of the surest ways of making him a
habitual liar. Many children pass through a stage in which they
naturally come to have the feeling which is expressed in the saying:
"If I have the name, I may as well have the game." We must show the
child that we have unbounded confidence in him, otherwise he will
lose faith in himself.

It is clear, then, that the "natural" method will not work in such
cases, for the impulse to condemn the child after he has committed a
wrong deed, instead of condemning the _deed_, may merely help
to fix upon him the habit of committing similar deeds in the future.

In Nature, too, the same punishment invariably follows the same
offence. If we try to imitate that method, the child soon learns
what he has to reckon with. If the child knows that a certain action
will produce a certain result, he often thinks it is worth the
price. Then the child feels that he has had his way, and, having