Final answer:
The children in the poem take for granted that money should be freely available to everyone equally, much like natural resources. They exhibit a naive attitude towards money, uninfluenced by societal constructs of wealth and poverty. The poem challenges readers to consider the subjective value of money and the complexity of people's attitudes towards it. The children's attitude toward money is quite simplistic and naïve; they see money as something that should be equally accessible to everyone,
Step-by-step explanation:
Based on paragraph 6 of the poem in question, the children seem to take for granted the natural availability and fairness of resources, such as money and fresh air, as bestowed by God or nature. They do not appear to acknowledge the societal constructs of wealth and class that dictate access to resources. The speaker implies that money has no intrinsic value beyond what humans ascribe to it, a mere 'blotted slip of paper,' yet it's essential to elevate from poverty, almost as if it were a divine intervention.
The children's attitude toward money is quite simplistic and naïve; they see money as something that should be equally accessible to everyone, without recognizing the complexities of economics and social structures. This dismissal of inequality suggests that they believe in a more utopian distribution of wealth. The father’s perspective, which likely influences the children's view, rationalizes his potential theft by reflecting on the equitable intentions of a higher power, seeing no wrongdoing in taking what he believes should be freely available to all of God's children.
Considering the instructions related to the analysis of syntax, it's crucial to reflect on how phrasing can influence one's understanding of money's role, similar to how syntactical changes affect interpretations. Lastly, the reference to David Myers' surveys on attitudes about money serves to underscore the complexity of people’s feelings regarding wealth and financial satisfaction.