Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

psychological abuse of children: where is the line?

Rate this topic


The Wrath

Recommended Posts

This topic has been broached before, but I haven't seen a full discussion on it. Put simply, here is the question I'd like discussed: at what point does the non-physical rearing of a child become abusive and, thus, is it legitimate for the state to step in and remove the child?

Allow me to clarifiy. In this instance, I am not talking about things like constantly demeaning children and yelling at them and such. I am talking about raising them in such a way that it will almost certainly impact their future chances for happiness. At sufficiently young ages, children internalize everything that adults--particularly their parents--say, in such a way that it is not inaccurate to say the children are "forced" to think about certain things in certain ways. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this: religion and political ideology.

I don't think parents should be prevented from raising their children according to a certain religion. But I do think there are certain methods of religious indoctrination that should be considered criminal child abuse. In particular, I am thinking of the method of telling children they will spend eternity in burning, agonizing torment if they do not become "saved." As someone who was subjected to that sort of indoctrination, I can say that I am still not completely over it. The idea of Hell was ingrained in my head well enough that I still sometimes get a little nervous, wondering if I might be wrong. Do I wish I had been taken away from my parents? Well, no...most of that sort of treatment took place at church anyway. I love my parents and, despite their flaws, I think they did a pretty good job with me. While that tactic was used on me, I know for a fact that it was very mild by comparison to what many other children go through.

Let's take another example, though this is not necessarily religious in nature. There was a case in the past several weeks where 2 children were removed from their parents (in Pennsylvania, maybe?). People had speculated that they were taken away because of the names that were given to the children: Adolf Hitler and Aryan Nations. Obviously, the parents were white supremacists and, as a result, the children almost certainly would have grown up with similar beliefs. Growing up with beliefs like this (not to mention the names), their future prospects for happiness and a normal life will be severely limited.

It's easy to use reductio ad absurdums against the idea that the state should step in in cases like this. If you start down this road, it is a very slippery slope...similar reasoning can be used to outlaw teaching your children to support particular centrist political ideologies. I wouldn't want to make it against the law for parents to teach their children to support the Democratic Party's platform, however much I might disagree with it.

But...is there a line to be drawn? I don't know if I think there should be a line or not...if there is one, I'd leave it to child psychologists to decide where it should be. Does there come a point where the state should step in and say "No. You have crossed the line and are using what amounts to psychological coercion against your child in a way that will severely limit his/her future prospects for psychological health and happiness."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest form of child abuse is probably the public school system. I would consider it more humane to take a bat to the head of every child daily than to cripple their minds with government 'learning'.

But, man possesses volition, an indoctrinated child can still question when he leaves home.

Edited by tito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you looked into what the actual legal standards are regarding what constitutes "child abuse"? Obviously since we're talking about the government's use of force to negate parental prerogative, this should be controlled by objective law, which implies a line. Ideally, then, relevant cases on one side versus the other could be integrated into a clear statutory description or forbidden acts. For example, we have written laws against murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wider point is, is 'psychological' abuse of a child the same as physical abuse?

A child, if physically abused, has been pushed backwards. His body has been damaged.

But a child is told awful stories about hell, purgatory, suffering, malevolence and altruism - in order to stamp out romanticism and undermine self esteem (like most parents do) - is he really pushed backwards? Or is he merely held back, restrained to a near zero-position of mental development?

I'm not sure if I've articulated my point well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you looked into what the actual legal standards are regarding what constitutes "child abuse"? Obviously since we're talking about the government's use of force to negate parental prerogative, this should be controlled by objective law, which implies a line. Ideally, then, relevant cases on one side versus the other could be integrated into a clear statutory description or forbidden acts. For example, we have written laws against murder.

No, I haven't looked into the legal standards, because my question is more about "what the standard should be" rather than "what the standard is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I haven't looked into the legal standards, because my question is more about "what the standard should be" rather than "what the standard is.
Why do think it is even sensible to try to answer the question without referring to any facts of reality? You know what the purpose of a child-protection law would be; no amount of rationalism will give you the knowledge that's required to state a principle covering all and only the acts which should be prohibited.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the world are you talking about? I'm asking what should be considered child abuse. It's a straightforward question.
I'm talking about the fact, which you don't seem to understand, that "child abuse" is meaningless nonsense. You should be focusing on what is good for the child, on parental prerogative and responsibility as custodians of their child's rights, and the proper role of government in limiting parental prerogative. Before you start musing about "child abuse", you ought to ask, what are the moral actions of a parent, with respect to a child? What should you do as a parent. First develop a moral theory about yourself and your child, because moral judgment is primarily about yourself, not others. Once you can do that for yourself, you might be able to develop general moral concepts that apply to a broader context; and only after than does it make any sense to raise legal questions. It's just silly to believe that you can philosophically deduce something concrete in legal philosophy as to what must be "child abuse", ex nihilo.

Ground your conclusions in reality, not arbitrary speculation. That's what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In keeping with what David has said, what is involved?

1. Rights of all concerned;

Life, Liberty, Property

2. Is there/can there be any limitation placed on a child's rights?

3. Responsibilities of the parent. Does/should parenthood demand certain standards with regard to the welfare of a child (education, socialization, normalization) outside of the childs inalienable rights?

4. Is the prohibition against the initiation of force a principal that can be applied to raising a child?

5. Is a child property? If so when does that cease?

I'm sure there are more questions than those...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say that it would take an especially rediculous approach to parenting to warrant taking a child away from parents. For example, if I lived in a town where every action, save those and my peers, were staged and I was continuously threatened with things which I know now to be ridiculous that would appear to happen to my neighbors and which were at least horrible enough to make me fear for my own sanity, that would justify government involvement.

Remember, fraud is just as potent as force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Responsibilities of the parent.

...

4. Is the prohibition against the initiation of force a principal that can be applied to raising a child?

So this seems like a good point to focus on. An obvious responsibility of a parent is to keep their child from running into rush-hour traffic and getting creamed. It is sometimes necessary to use force to get a child especially under age 6 to not play in traffic. Thus it is in some cases mandatory to initiate force against the child, so that the child can eventually develop into a being fully exercising its rational faculty. To let you child get killed by an oncoming car because you could not use force (or reason) to protect your child would be a complete abandonment of your responsibility as a parent. I would go so far as to say that a parent who allowed their child to be killed because they could not bear to restrain the child should be criminally prosecuted for some form of homicide.

This does not mean that a child is property and that matters of force can simply be ignored when it comes to children. Flogging a child for tracking mud in the house would be equally unforgivable, because such force is not justified, given the purpose of being a parent (being the custodian of a child's rights; preparing the child to be a functioning human who lives by reason).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about the other aspect of the question I posed?

Does/should parenthood demand certain standards with regard to the welfare of a child (education, socialization, normalization) outside of the child's inalienable rights?

If a parent does not teach a child to speak then that child will be adversely affected for the remainder of it's life. If a parent deprives the child of sufficient nutrition then that to can adversely affect the child's development into a being capable of exercising it's rational faculties. If a parent keeps a child segregated for all other people than that will negatively affect the child as well.

Do you as a parent have a duty to provide basic necessities for a child above and beyond it's inalienable rights?

I believe the answer is yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a parent does not teach a child to speak then that child will be adversely affected for the remainder of it's life.
As a matter of fact, parents do not teach children to speak, so that's almost a non-issue. However, it actually could be in an exceptional case. If the parents are deaf (provide no linguistic stimulus for the child) and if, being beaver-trappers, they live in northern Manitoba (almost never see another human), then the child may have no linguistic input which could seriously affect their cognitive development. The parents should do something to assure that the child acquires language normally.

Now the question becomes whether this "should" is something to be enforced by law. That could mean that the parents would be forced to move to some more densely populated area, such as Hamilton, where the child will be exposed to a normal linguistic environment. I think that this is really the test case (imprisoning a child in the basement or not feeding them are actions that are correctly prohibited by law, so I consider them to be in the already-answered category -- there is an enforceable obligation to feed). The point here is that the rights of the parents would be entirely subordinated to the welfare of the child -- they must give up their lives for the sake of the child -- and that would be the line which law should not cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this is really the test case (imprisoning a child in the basement or not feeding them are actions that are correctly prohibited by law, so I consider them to be in the already-answered category -- there is an enforceable obligation to feed).
Okay, fair enough although I could feed a child just not give it the right kind of food (deny it protein for example) and adversely affect it... Wasn't there a case of some vegan morons killing their child in just such a fashion?

And what about the religious nut-bars that deny their children medical attention?

The point here is that the rights of the parents would be entirely subordinated to the welfare of the child -- they must give up their lives for the sake of the child -- and that would be the line which law should not cross.

No, their rights still exist, they, having decided, to have a child are in essence agreeing to a contract that says "Till Johnny or Jill reaches the maturity of his/her faculties, there are certain things that you MUST provide him/her with."

This is not unreasonable, the question is where is that line between what is and is not reasonable.

Edited by Zip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No replies. Well I'll take a shot.

A child needs nourishment, it can not feed itself, so reasonably parents should provide nourishing food for the child.

A child needs shelter, and that shelter should be of the same standard as that which the parent enjoys, no sleeping in a box in the root cellar unless the parent is also does.

I would also say that a child should be able to expect to enjoy the same level of security as the parent.

Come to think of it, if the parent does unto the child as he/she does to himself then there ought to be no problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...