Minors: Rights And Children

[Toolboxnj]

It's my understanding that the parent is the child's guardian until it has the faculties to perform on its own. A child, as an individual, has the right to life and property but the parent is its custodian that holds these responsibilities in trust until the age of majority.

It would be criminal to abuse or neglict children that are in your care or that have been entrusted to you. If you wish to give up custody of the child, that is certainly your right. But so long as you hold that position of trust with a child (and you could argue that elderly adults can be in this position as well) then it's your job to take care of them.

[RationalBiker]

** I have tenatively re-opened this thread of discussion. I would ask that anyone who wishes to discuss it read through the existing arguments to see if there is "new ground" to be added to it. Thanks. **

[Kevin]

I've done my best to absorb the points made so far, and I apologize if my comments seem overly redundant, but I thought of an analogy that might clarify things somewhat.

When a baby is born, it is essentially in mortal danger at all times- left to itself, it will inevitably die in short order. And the people respnsible for placing the bay in this precarious state are the parents. So, if I were to put a fully grown adult in a situation, without their consent, where death was inevitable without my intervention (imagine any scenario you like- maybe I surrounded them with crocodiles in their sleep), would I not be responsible for securing their well-being in the face of that danger? And, if a child is in mortal danger for as long as it's rational faculty is incapable of independently sustaining life, wouldn't the obligation be the same?

[Groovenstein]

** I have tenatively re-opened this thread of discussion. I would ask that anyone who wishes to discuss it read through the existing arguments to see if there is "new ground" to be added to it. Thanks. **

In light of the hugeness of this thread, I propose further that the arguments advanced here thus far be grouped, organized, summarized, etc., so that we have the essentials of each position all in one spot. Then any particular point has a better shot at being placed correctly in its overall context.

Not that I'm volunteering for this . . .

[mb121]

*** Mod's note: Merged with a previous thread. - sN ***

Rights are grounded in rationality. Someone explain to me how a child has rights. If you answer no and instead say that parents have obligations for to their children for brining them into existance, really explain where this obligation comes from and to what extent it holdss true.

thanks.

Edited July 31, 2008 by softwareNerd
Added 'merged' notice

[DavidOdden]

Rights are grounded in rationality.

There's the error. Rights are grounded in the conditions for survival qua man. Does that help, i.e. can you get back on track from there, or do you need more?

[LaszloWalrus]

Children have rights because they have a (developing) rational faculty.

Parents have moral obligations to their children because their unilateral actions brought the children into existence. The children were obviously not consulted about whether or not they wanted to be born.

[mb121]

Parents have moral obligations to their children because their unilateral actions brought the children into existence. The children were obviously not consulted about whether or not they wanted to be born.

Ah, so then just because they are born you owe them something (because you created them). What do you owe them (and how could this not be arbitrary and determined largely by societal standards)? Also, doesn't this force a pro-life stance?

In addition, how can you tell your 4 year old kid to respect your right to life if he can't even understand what a right to life is? This is, as I understand it, is why animals don't have rights (their specific mode of survival is not volitional and they can't form higher level concepts).

[Cogito]

What do you owe them (and how could this not be arbitrary and determined largely by societal standards)?

I'm thinking this is bordering on the fallacy of the borderline case. Just because a choice has to be made and there is an acceptable range for that choice doesn't mean the choice is arbitrary.

Also, doesn't this force a pro-life stance?

No, because this obligation applies to physically independent, living beings with a developing rational consciousness

In addition, how can you tell your 4 year old kid to respect your right to life if he can't even understand what a right to life is?

You can't. You can, however, tell him specific, concrete things he can and cannot do (and as his consciousness develops, you can get more abstract), and he's likely to listen to you in the younger years (for some obvious evolutionary reasons, children automatically listen to a lot of what their parents say up to a certain point).

[mb121]

Explain to me:

1) Why I would be morally wrong leaving my baby left to die immediately after he is born.

2) What obligations I have to him because he is born and who determines them and how they are necessarily moral

[Moebius]

There's the error. Rights are grounded in the conditions for survival qua man. Does that help, i.e. can you get back on track from there, or do you need more?

But I thought survival qua man is grounded in rationality, hence rights are grounded in rationality?

[KendallJ]

But I thought survival qua man is grounded in rationality, hence rights are grounded in rationality?

Technically that's the progress of the derivation but conditions for survival is more directly integrated with reality. If you ground them in rationality, you immediately ask, well why should they be such? Rights are not grounded in rationality per se, they are grounded in such because it is the fundamental condition for survival of man.

[Moebius]

Technically that's the progress of the derivation but conditions for survival is more directly integrated with reality. If you ground them in rationality, you immediately ask, well why should they be such? Rights are not grounded in rationality per se, they are grounded in such because it is the fundamental condition for survival of man.

You lost me. Why isn't rights grounded in rationality again? Because it's not realistic? What's wrong exactly with asking "why should they be such"? And how does surviving man qua man relate to children's rights?

[KendallJ]

You could say it either way, but conditions for survival is better tied to reality as a concept. It is the reason rationality is even in there. Rationality is the means. Survival the end.

[DavidOdden]

But I thought survival qua man is grounded in rationality, hence rights are grounded in rationality?

Let's dispense with unordered grounding, and concentrate on the logical hierarchy. Because we're speaking of moral evaluation, we concentrate on the premier moral issue -- what is the fundamental choice? Given the choice to exist, that implies something, namely existence as something (there is no such thing as "pure existence"). Thus the real ground is "to exist", and that is the standard for evaluating all choices. The choice "I will exist" implies "I will exist as a man", which implies "I will exist as a rational being", which implies "It is right that I exist as a rational being", that is, "It is right that I exist as a being using reason as my means of survival". In a social context, a man's right to exist as a rational being implies not only what you have a right to do, but also what you don't have a right to do -- you may not prevent a man from acting in accordance with his rights.

I'm not proposing to present the entire derivation of child rights (which is much easier) and adult obligations (pain in the neck) here. My position is that if you start any philosophical derivation from the wrong foundation -- e.g. that rationality magically conveys rights -- then you are going to end up veering off course at some point.

[Moebius]

I'm not proposing to present the entire derivation of child rights (which is much easier) and adult obligations (pain in the neck) here. My position is that if you start any philosophical derivation from the wrong foundation -- e.g. that rationality magically conveys rights -- then you are going to end up veering off course at some point.

Hm. But if you were to derive anything from rationality, by definition it would not happen magically but rather logically. If you end up veering off course, it's not so much that you started from the wrong foundation, but rather that somewhere along the line your logic went wrong.

[DavidOdden]

Hm. But if you were to derive anything from rationality, by definition it would not happen magically but rather logically.

Is it that you don't understand the difference between "derive rationally" and "derive from 'rationality'"?

[JMeganSnow]

Rights don't derive directly from the existence of a rational capacity, as David and Kendall have explained. They derive from the nature of the functioning of man's rational capacity. In theory (although probably not in practice, although you never know about that sort of thing) you could have other critters with a rational capacity that functioned in such a way as to preclude rights, like the Borg or a hive full of rational bugs or something. I could write a science fiction story about it via the literary method known as "pulling things out of my *ss".

Man's rational capacity, however, has several functional caveats that make rights a necessity for him: it is volitional, it is not automatic or infalliable, it doesn't function properly under coercion, it is individual with functions that cannot be shared, etc. It also takes time to develop.

Rights for children are one step further removed because they aren't derived directly from the nature of man's consciousness but from the necessary requirements for human development that will eventually lead to the existence of a (potentially) rational adult. I certainly advise reading Don Watkins' theory of broken units, because he explains a methodology for approaching things that don't quite fit in their own category.

The way you derive rights for children (or vegetative adults, or the mentally retarded) is to start with the full adult situation and work backwards inductively, keeping in mind the nature of the other parties involved as you go. I've come up with a rough-and-ready solution for myself that I believe covers the contingencies, but of course I'm neither a professional philosopher nor a spokesman for Objectivism, so you have to take what I say with a grain of salt.

To give you an idea of my theory, I'll answer your 2 questions:

1.) Would you be morally wrong to abandon your baby to die after birth?

As with all moral questions under Objectivism, the answer to this contains a lot of "it depends", namely it depends on the circumstances. Legally, you have the right to refuse to care for a child. Whether it is moral to do so depends on why you do it and how you do it. Keep in mind that this kind of assumes you are female . . . if you're male you can abandon the baby before it is born. Anyway, if you're the only inhabitant of a desert island (or an absurdly poor medieval village) and there's no way you can feed and support both yourself and the baby--and you have no access to other measures like abortion--you are completely moral in exposing the baby, since this is what would happen to it anyway and at least this way YOU have a chance to survive. In any other less-extreme circumstances where you have the option to give the child away to someone that WILL care for it, you would be guilty of murder, no ifs, ands, or buts. As long as you are in custody of the child you are responsible for exercising its rights to the best of your ability. This means leaving the kid at a hospital instead of in a dumpster . . . which is actually safer and easier for you in any case.

2.) What obligations do you have to a child because it is born?

I'd just like to point out that the "who determines them" part of your question is absolute nonsense. Asking "who determines what is moral?" is like asking "who decided tomatoes are edible?". It's based on the facts of reality, which are discovered by people but not invented by them.

Anyway, you have no obligations to a child because it is born, even if it is your child, any more than you have obligations to other adults because they were born. However, if the child is in your custody you have certain obligations to that child because you are exercising its rights, which I basically answered above: if you are unwilling to care for the child and you have any kind of options available to you, then it's up to you to find some sort of situation. This level of responsibility is so minor that only a truly evil individual, a killer, would default on it.

Edited April 30, 2007 by JMeganSnow

[tnunamak]

I'd be interested in hearing what people have to say about the following issue in the news (if I dare call CNN news):

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html

[utabintarbo]

I'd be interested in hearing what people have to say about the following issue in the news (if I dare call CNN news):

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/25/baby.emilio/index.html

From TFA:

"Emilio is on Medicaid, which usually doesn't pay for all hospital charges. The hospital's spokesman said that he doesn't know how much it's costing the hospital to keep Emilio alive, but that cost was not a consideration in the hospital's decision."

Why is cost not a consideration? I'm not saying it should be the only, or even necessarily a major consideration, but it definitely should be a factor. Especially when community aid is playing a (rather large) role.

[Michael Caution]

Rights for children are one step further removed because they aren't derived directly from the nature of man's consciousness but from the necessary requirements for human development that will eventually lead to the existence of a (potentially) rational adult. I certainly advise reading Don Watkins' theory of broken units, because he explains a methodology for approaching things that don't quite fit in their own category.

The way you derive rights for children (or vegetative adults, or the mentally retarded) is to start with the full adult situation and work backwards inductively, keeping in mind the nature of the other parties involved as you go. I've come up with a rough-and-ready solution for myself that I believe covers the contingencies, but of course I'm neither a professional philosopher nor a spokesman for Objectivism, so you have to take what I say with a grain of salt. [bold added]

I think you hit the crux of the argument with that point. It is not that you define a system of philosophy at the point of birth but that you define your system based on the fullest extent possible to man. Just as you don't define psychology using the mentally retarted as the norm, the same goes for philosophy. If children's mental capacity and mode of rationality were the basis for a system of philosophy how could you explain the vast superiority of adults? It wouldn't make sense.

[JMeganSnow]

Not to mention that you'd have a system of philosophy based on the idea that men need someone to take care of them and make decisions for them, because this is the metaphysical state of children. You could almost say that nanny-state altruism is the ethical system that derives from thinking that men are perpetual children. It'd be true.

[Starling]

*** Mod's note: Merged with a previous thread on the subject. - sN ***

I have struggled for a long time with this question and have recently decided to start from "Man's Rights" and try to figure this out. Precisely what rights do children have? How should laws deal with children and their rights? I would like to start from fundamentals, but eventually be able to answer: consent at various ages, when and to what extent children become/are responsible before the law, to what extent can parents physically force their child, and how/when should the law protect children from their parents.

I'll post something as soon as I have studied the matter sufficiently, but meanwhile, thoughts anyone?

Edited July 31, 2008 by softwareNerd
Added 'merged' notice

[softwareNerd]

I've merged your thread with a previous long, long discussion.

In an attempt not to repeat what's been said in the discussion above, I'll suggest a different approach....

Simplify, and consider just one specific right. Consider only the right to life in the sense that people are not allowed to kill you, assuming you have not initiated violence, nor threatened harm, nor even planned to harm anyone.

For starters, consider it in an adult context. Why should people be banned from killing you (an adult)? If you find you have reasons why people should be banned from killing you, ask if they should be allowed to kill you if you are 13 years old.

[Starling]

I've merged your thread with a previous long, long discussion.

Thanks! I did a search, I promise, but for some reason "children's rights" didn't show up in the first 25 or so hits. Then again, I'm notoriously bad at searches. Apologies.

I agree with your suggestion for approach. Here's what I have arrived at so far (sorry for the lack of elegance):

Man's rights are derived from man's nature, specifically that reason is his only tool of survival. He therefore cannot survive when his reason is made impotent. Man can't survive against animals and nature with physical strength alone- he must use reason. Similarly, man can't sustain his life (long-term) through use physical force against other men to attain what they have created through reason because once the reasoning men are destroyed it will be man-versus-nature again and he will have to use reason or perish. Animals and forces of nature have no volition, but man does, therefore morality applies to man. When men live together (as they virtually always do), it is therefore a right of every man to be free from physical force, that is to say, he must be free to use his reason (physical force being the only thing that man can do to make reason impotent). Man's existence must be his own, or in other words, he has a right to his own life, and the fundamental basis for this right is man's dependence on (his own) reason to survive.

My next thought was this: Young children, in contrast, have absolutely no tools for survival, however if kept healthy, meaning if they are kept physically safe and can interact with the world, they will develop reason and will be able to survive on their own. This is not a potential, like a fetus is "potentially" a human. This is a physical fact of the human brain.

However I now think I was way off base. My new line of reasoning is as follows: Children experience the same pain/pleasure sensations that form the basis of man's life as a value, but they have no means to preserve it. While this by itself does not impose an obligation on any given person to care for a child, the person who gives birth to the child cannot do so accidentally, especially today. Man has known for his entire history how procreation works, else he would not be here (not having any instincts, he had to choose to learn sex). Having a child is, and always has been, a choice (except rape before pregnancy termination procedures, so in those cases infanticide was perhaps moral). Therefore parents are obligated to provide a child with everything necessary and sufficient to develop the ability to care for themselves.

Any holes? I'd like to establish this before I move on to particulars.