Is pampering children good? What could be the consequences? Is pampering children good? What could be the consequences?

Excessively pampering children can cause some serious consequences, and this essay will be discussing these disastrous results from two sides: providing everything the children demand, and authorizing the children to do anything they want to do. Excessively pampering children can cause some serious consequences, and this essay will be discussing these disastrous results from two sides: providing everything the children demand, and authorizing the children to do anything they want to do.

Comma makes it easier to read / determine what the two sides are

Spoiling a child tends to be a recipe for disaster in their self-development. Spoiling a child tends to be a recipe for disaster in their self-development.

In the short term, being handed tohanding everything ton theim on a silver platters contributes to thea lack of self-care skills. In the short term, handing everything to them on a silver platter contributes to a lack of self-care skills.

We usually say "silver platter" as part of a set expression

In other words, children may take every favor for granted, and once this help has vanished, they are unlikely to be able to tackle difficulties (on their own), let alone to make their own decisions in some abstract, abstruse thingmatters, from whether or not to participate in an activity to picking college majors. In other words, children may take every favor for granted, and once this help has vanished, they are unlikely to be able to tackle difficulties (on their own), let alone to make their own decisions in abstract, abstruse matters, from whether or not to participate in an activity to picking college majors.

The "from (...) to (...)" structure sounds a little off to me in this context. I think "such as (...) and (...)" would fit more naturally

These things, of course, incorporatlude some immoral ones. These things, of course, include some immoral ones.

The meaning of this line is a bit unclear to me. Are the "things" referring to the "anything" in the previous sentence, i.e. allowing children to do immoral things? If so, I think the words are too far apart for this to be intuitively understood on a first readthrough, since these lines are separated into two sentences. You could maybe rephrase this to something like: "Allowing children to do anything they want can not only ruin their lives but also damage public interests, as these 'things' naturally also (tend to) include immoral actions" ('Immoral' comes off as too strong if you're referring to things like being loud in public. "Disruptive behaviour" or "disorderly conduct" might work better instead)

From a child’s perspective, these actions, such as making noise in public, seem to be inconsequential, as no one might have a loss is having their property odamaged or losing their life. From a child’s perspective, these actions, such as making noise in public, seem to be inconsequential, as no one is having their property damaged or losing their life.

"loss" in their property would be e.g. going homeless - if you're referring to vandalism, you would say "damage". You could also use 'harm' as a more general word, like "no one is experiencing any harm to their property or their life/wellbeing"

However, if such a small, obnoxious action escalates into crimes, like vandalism, bullying, or even murder others, it will result in tragedy for multiple families: the perpetrators will incur severe punishment, and innocent victims will suffer lifelong trauma. However, if such a small, obnoxious action escalates into crimes, like vandalism, bullying, or even murder, it will result in tragedy for multiple families: the perpetrators will incur severe punishment, and innocent victims will suffer lifelong trauma.