Are young children property?

[masked]

A child is not capable to sustain its own life for some period after birth. During that time, is that child property?

I am trying to figure out how Objectivism could be applied to the abuse of young children. Here are some examples:

A parent refuses medical treatment for their child because of religion.

A parent physically abuses their child because of mental problems.

Considering that the child in the examples is always too young to live on their own or to make their own choices, should the government be able to do anything? Should everything a parent wants to do with their child be legal?

I think that Ayn Rand was legally for and morally against abortions, but I am not sure how she felt about young children. Any links to her thoughts on the subject would be appreciated.

I know that this is a lot so thanks in advance.

[DavidOdden]

A child is not capable to sustain its own life for some period after birth. During that time, is that child property?

No; why would you think that it is?

Considering that the child in the examples is always too young to live on their own or to make their own choices, should the government be able to do anything?

Yes, they should be able to take the child from the parents if they are not acting properly as the custodian of the child's rights, as would be the case in such examples.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Children are the charges of their parents, not their cargo. Children are not property.

Bob Kolker

[TLD]

'masked' 

A child is not capable to sustain its own life for some period after birth.  During that time, is that child property?[/code]




A child is an individual with the same rights as an adult. However, he simply cannot exercise all rights at a young age and the parent has to make decisions for him. "No" to "property.



[code]A parent refuses medical treatment for their child because of religion.

A parent physically abuses their child because of mental problems.

These are obvious violations of rights.

Considering that the child in the examples is always too young to live on their own or to make their own choices, should the government be able to do anything?  Should everything a parent wants to do with their child be legal?

Parents are responsible - for the child's livelihood; and the Govt. should only act to prevent violations of rights.

I think that Ayn Rand was legally for and morally against abortions, but I am not sure how she felt about young children.

Objectivism supports abortion in principle. What about "young children"?

[masked]

No; why would you think that it is?

I did not mean to express an opinion. It was just a question.

Yes, they should be able to take the child from the parents if they are not acting properly as the custodian of the child's rights, as would be the case in such examples.

By what standard does a government measure what is "acting properly"?

Children are the charges of their parents, not their cargo. Children are not property.

I do not know what a "charge" means. Could you please define or link to a definition?

A child is an individual with the same rights as an adult. However, he simply cannot exercise all rights at a young age and the parent has to make decisions for him.

These are obvious violations of rights.

I am not sure how you can violate a right that can not be exercised in the first place. Can you please explain?

Objectivism supports abortion in principle. What about "young children"?

Did she have an opinion on how or if a government should handle child abuse? Sorry that I was not clear.

Thank you for the responses.

[phibetakappa]

I think that Ayn Rand was legally for and morally against abortions,

I'm pretty sure that Ayn Rand was morally for abortions. She's stated that parts of humans don't have rights, as a fetus part of the woman. More importantly, the women does have a total right to her body and its parts, such that if she wants to remove/abort the fetal part of her body it is her choice.

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"(“Of Living Death,”

The Voice of Reason, 58–59.)

The Ayn Rand Lexicon

[DavidOdden]

It was just a question.

But I don't understand what would even motivate the question. Questions don't come from nothing. They are a means of confirming or disconfirming a claim for which you have some evidence, and I just don't see what the evidence could be for the claim that children are property.

By what standard does a government measure what is "acting properly"?

The interests of the child -- that which is good for the child. The government uses the same standards that the parent is supposed to use. When it is objectively determined that a parent is acting contrary to the interests of the child and violates the rights of a child, then the government should prevent the parent from violating the child's rights.

[TLD]

'masked' 

By what standard does a government measure what is "acting properly"?[/code]




Rationality



[code]I am not sure how you can violate a right that can not be exercised in the first place.  Can you please explain?

I was referring to your examples when noting violations of rights.

[phibetakappa]

No; why would you think that it is?

To play devil's advocate:

Children do share many of the same characteristics of what is conventionally thought of as "property", especially when that property is of a living kind.

Barring their potentiality of growing from non-rational living beings, into rational beings; children are not unlike pets and/or livestock, i.e., other non-rational animals one owns and/or maintains.

One could argue that parents do assert a sort of ownership over their children.

Of course, they don't stay non-rational for very long, and quickly start actualizing aspects of their rational potential.

The potentiality of their species and what they will inevitably will become ( i.e., a fully formed adult man); plays a large role in how we as individual and society treats children.

[phibetakappa]

I just don't see what the evidence could be for the claim that children are property.

Again, extending devils advocate:

If you want evidence to support the thesis that children are similar to property, just examine what makes pets and lives stock property, especially pets.

Pets are living non-rational animals that depend on us for sustaining their lives.

Now, obviously, these similarities end when we consider the full context of the specific kind of animal a child is a species of, i.e., the type of consciousness it possess, and what a child will be.

As I stated before, the relationship between parent and child has many of the same characteristics that conventional ownership displays. The parent can exercise control of the child to some degree similar to how they exercise control over their pets. Parents can even sell their children and/or give them away using surrogacy and adoption. Parents can even exercise limited use of force over their children in terms of punishment and restricting their actions.

We even speaks of their children as if they are property, stating these are my children, this is my child, which indicates a belief of "possession."

However, context needs to be maintained, and what a child will be is accounted for and thus we develop set of complex hybrid rules, which apply to children differently than those applying to adults. For example, "the age of consent," "the legal drinking age," "being tried as an adult", "selective service", "voting" etc, etc. etc.

Edited February 4, 2010 by phibetakappa

[TLD]

To play devil's advocate:

Children do share many of the same characteristics of what is conventionally thought of as "property", especially when that property is of a living kind.

Barring their potentiality of growing from non-rational living beings, into rational beings; children are not unlike pets and/or livestock, i.e., other non-rational animals one owns and/or maintains.

One could argue that parents do assert a sort of ownership over their children.

Of course, they don't stay non-rational for very long, and quickly start actualizing aspects of their rational potential.

The potentiality of their species and what they will inevitably will become ( i.e., a fully formed adult man); plays a large role in how we as individual and society treats children.

One should not play devil's advocate with principles. Children are not property - period.

They are not fundamentally like animals at all.

Parents do not own them - period.

[phibetakappa]

One should not play devil's advocate with principles. Children are not property - period.

They are not fundamentally like animals at all.

Parents do not own them - period.

Yes, in fact they ARE animals! Just like like adults. That is our genus, i.e., man is properly defined as the rational (differentia) animal (genus).

You are not considering the full context.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. :-)

Edited February 4, 2010 by phibetakappa

[DavidOdden]

One should not play devil's advocate with principles. Children are not property - period.

One should play devil's advocate with principles, since such principles are not axiomatic. Your response can be restated as "Dogs are not property - period". PBK advanced the best argument possible to support the child-property thesis. It is an argument that can be demolished with facts and logic, of course, but at least now the thesis is not totally arbitrary.

[DavidOdden]

Children do share many of the same characteristics of what is conventionally thought of as "property", especially when that property is of a living kind.

Some day I will hunker down and learn the conventional names and meanings of The Fallacies. This looks like the fallacy of composition -- having some property of an entity does not mean you have all properties of the entity.

Barring their potentiality of growing from non-rational living beings, into rational beings...

This is the "Grandmother's balls" fallacy, i.e. setting aside the facts of reality. It also mistakenly equates the limited facility with which children realize their rational potential with a complete absence of that faculty; and it mistakenly reduces rights as a fact of man's proper existence to perfection in mental performance.

Pets are living non-rational animals that depend on us for sustaining their lives.

Whereas children are living rational animals that depend on us for sustaining their lives.

We even speaks of their children as if they are property, stating these are my children, this is my child, which indicates a belief of "possession."

People also say "My God!", which does not indicate a belief of "possession". Consider also "My favorite movie" -- that does not indicate a belief of "possession". Sorry, that's a whiffle. Syntactic "possessive" pronouns express a relationship, not just a belief in possession.

But, good try.

[phibetakappa]

Whereas children are living rational animals that depend on us for sustaining their lives.

The fascinating aspect of the nature of children is the fact is that children by definition are not fully rational. We do not consider children able to make decisions for themselves. I.e., who we consider a child is in large part deterred by the rational capacity of the given person.

Developmentally, children are in a hybrid state of development for many years. Human ontogeny is the longest of any species of animal, i.e., the length of time between birth and maturity.

This is why legally we treat them as exceptions, making special legal concessions to compensate for their immature state. Legally, maturity basically consists of when the person is thought to be completely responsible for their actions, such as being able to understand the consequences of their actions.

From ITOE, AR states,

The concept "property" denotes the relationship of a man to an object (or an idea): his right to use it and to dispose of it—and involves a long chain of moral-legal concepts, including the procedure by which the object was acquired. The mere observation of a man in the act of using an object will not convey the concept "property."

"dispose" here does not mean destroy, to get rid of an object; it means to "to arrange or decide matters." It means to do with an object what one believes is right. The opposite is to do only by permission.

It is precisely because legally that children are treated as a highly specialized form of property, that parents retain a legal right to make the decisions for on behalf of their children. Parents can raise their children precisely because they have a limited form of property rights to them. The right to raise a child according to the parents judgment is only a form of the right to dispose of one's property.

This is why I stated don't through the baby out with the bath water. It is a child's highly specialized and delimited state of being a form of property, which give parents the right to raise their children, giving parents the right to decide how to feed, clothe, shelter, school their children. (Granted as we progressively loose our property rights, we also, loose our rights as parents to decide what's best for our children.)

Otherwise, the opposite is literally a system of collectivism, where the rights to one's property does not exist. A notable feature of collectivism being that parents of children do not have a right to dispose of their children, i.e., to decide on their behalf. Rather, the state disposes of children for the good of the collective.

The limitations of the hybrid-property rights arise because of the consideration of the full nature of the child. It is because children are known to be immature humans that they are only granted a sub-set of legal rights; whereas their parents maintain the majority of rights to make decisions on the child's behalf. Why? Because the child is not able to make decisions for themselves.

Acknowledging that children in their hybrid-state of being immature adults, gives rise to a highly delimited form of property rights to the parents of children thereof does not have some evil consequences. It is not as if having such a delimited form of property rights allows parents to legally murder their children, or eat them, exploit and/or prostitute them.

Further, it is not as if parents having a highly limited form of property rights over their children necessarily removes the child's rights, which they are not capable of exercising. But as the child becomes more aware, more fully rational and able to make their own decisions, we socially and legally began granting children more rights. In certain cases a child can petition the court for emancipation, at which point the parents limited right to dispose of the child is legally broken, and the child is considered and adult and able to dispose of themselves.

Parents can and do "dispose" of their children, i.e, can and do make decisions as to what their child will and will not do.

When the nature of the property is different, if the property is a car or a dog for example, certain limitations to the range of how the owner (parent) can dispose of the property are legally upheld. We do not yet have car cruelty statutes but in most states we have animal cruelty statutes (see Michael Vick case). Whereas on the flip side, people are allowed to keep live stock to slaughter and eat, but not if those live stocks are dogs and cats.

It is in the legal and cultural considerations of the precise nature of the "property" being owned that give rise to limitations to the ownership.

In the case of children, being potential rational/responsible adults, has given rise to a complex system of rights and cultural norms regarding how parents are expected to raise their children. Parents can not starve, beat, kill, prostitute, sexually abuse, their children. These (and many others) are the limitations on their right to dispose of their children as they see fit.

But within the social and legal limits, parents have great latitude to dispose of their children as they see fit. They can choose when and where their children will go, who they will associate with, where they will live, what they will eat, where they will go to school etc. etc. etc.

How are they legally and morally able to dispose of their children in such ways? "Their" children are "theirs," i.e., their children are in fact a highly-limited form of property.

If you don't believe this try to tell any given parent how to parent their children. You will illicit the same response (only more potent) as if you had told them how they should drive "their" car, how they should keep "their" yard, how they should where "their" clothes etc. etc. etc.

Parents are "possessive" over their children. For the same reason why the are possessive over any of their possessions.

The difference is that children grow up, and are able to eventually decide for themselves.

It is in the assertion of these specialized property rights which characterized the universal nature of adolescence, and the fundamental conflict between teen agers and their parents. Parents assert they have the right to dispose of their children and the children counter, stating they can run their own lives.

It is precisely the love for one's property, which characterize parental love, and the lengths most loving parents will go to protect, and raise their child to the best of their ability. For most it is the most valuable property they have, and they spend most of their lives planning on the disposal of their children, i.e., how to put their children in the best position they can as those children leave their hybrid-state and become fully autonomous adults.

Edited February 4, 2010 by phibetakappa

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Yes, in fact they ARE animals! Just like like adults. That is our genus, i.e., man is properly defined as the rational (differentia) animal (genus).

You are not considering the full context.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. :-)

The young child - incapable of making rational decisions on its own - will live in its natural habitat; with its parents in a home. It is then (hopefully) raised to be a rational human adult. Parents make decisions for their children because that is part of growing up for a human being. It is the most rational way to allow your child to live a fulfilling childhood.

A dog, on the other hand, is taken out of its natural habitat, placed into a domestic home, and trained to operate as a companion for humans. Because many dogs are domesticated and bred to the point of being unable to survive in the wilderness, NOT being owned is not in the interest of any dog. Nevertheless, dogs will never mature to rationality, because they are unable to possess free will. You can morally own any thing that does not possess free will. Humans are unique with respect to their possession of free will:

Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade—to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces.

Edwin Locke once wrote about chimpanzees in a similar context:

...chimpanzees, the most advanced of the primates, have been on earth for about four million years. During that entire period they have not produced even the rudiments of a primitive culture. If chimpanzees could reason even at a primitive level, this would give them such a competitive advantage in the struggle for survival that the earth would be overrun with chimpanzees...

...

If chimps cannot reason, then they cannot grasp moral principles. Since rights are moral principles--principles which define and sanction man's freedom of action in society'the (sic) concept of rights is totally beyond a chimp's power to grasp and therefore is irrelevant to its life.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...cle&id=5332

If the concept of rights is totally beyond a dog's , and is irrelevant to its life, If you can own anything that doesn't have rights, then you can own a dog, but since humans have rights, you cannot own one. Humans have rights because they are volitional, and possess the ability to reason. Children do not hold any special exception to this because by nature, they possess the ability to reason - that ability is simply undeveloped. A dog can never hope to develop reason.

[masked]

Children do not hold any special exception to this because by nature, they possess the ability to reason - that ability is simply undeveloped.

I disagree.

Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being

The right to life is the source of all rights

While a child can not sustain its own life, it can not exercise the right to live, and thus has no rights.

Edited February 4, 2010 by masked

[phibetakappa]

If the concept of rights is totally beyond a dog's , and is irrelevant to its life, If you can own anything that doesn't have rights, then you can own a dog, but since humans have rights, you cannot own one.

I don't follow your argument.

Humans have rights because they are volitional, and possess the ability to reason. Children do not hold any special exception to this because by nature, they possess the ability to reason - that ability is simply undeveloped. A dog can never hope to develop reason.

Human don't have rights solely because they are volitional. They have rights because there are certain necessary conditions their life requires, which must be maintained if they are to live among other men in a society.

However, you are correct, when a child becomes an adult he will have the same requirements has any other person in society, and those requirements must be maintained when attempting to live in and around other men, if they are to life qua men in society.

You are correct a dog can neither reason or hope (which depends on reason).

Edited February 4, 2010 by phibetakappa

[softwareNerd]

While a child can not sustain its own life, it can not exercise the right to live, and thus has no rights.

A child can eat and breath. Aren't these functions the exercise of the rights to life?

[TLD]

One should play devil's advocate with principles, since such principles are not axiomatic. Your response can be restated as "Dogs are not property - period". PBK advanced the best argument possible to support the child-property thesis. It is an argument that can be demolished with facts and logic, of course, but at least now the thesis is not totally arbitrary.

Perhaps I was focusing on this being an Objectivist forum????

Too many times, someone who knows Obj. principles wants to not just attempt to clarify them but to act like the principles have to be arbitrarily challenged; the latter goes too far in my mind.

[Jake_Ellison]

PBK, you seem to have turned from Devil's advocate into Rand's advocate, and you seem to be claiming that the Objectivist definition of property allows for some sort of hybrid concept that would make children the partial property of their parents. In reality, in Objectivism property rights are the right to use and dispose of material values one created. Not to use and dispose of children. In Objectivism, children are unequivocally considered men, and all men are ends in themselves. Men cannot rightfully be property.

As for a child's relationship to its parents, I've heard Leonard Peikoff (who has one daughter, I think) say that raising a child is a full time occupation. As for Rand, here are the words she put in a mother's mouth in AS, as she's speaking about her children (living in Galt's Gulch):

"They represent my particular career, Miss Taggart," said the young mother in answer to her comment. . . . "They're the profession I've chosen to practice, which, in spite of all the guff about motherhood, one can't practice successfully in the outer world. . . . I came here, not merely for the sake of my husband's profession, but for the sake of my own. I came here in order to bring up my sons as human beings."

Here's Rand, answering a Playboy interviewer:

PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

RAND: Not immoral—I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper—if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence.

Does that really sound like children are their parents' to use and dispose of? Children are their parents' responsibility, and responsible parents naturally have the right to raise their children. But not because it's their property, to use and dispose of, but because they are its legal guardians. It is not an owner-property relationship, by any means.

[phibetakappa]

In Objectivism, children are unequivocally considered men, and all men are ends in themselves. Men cannot rightfully be property.

You are being obtuse.

The fact of the matter is that children are not men. They are in an in between state. This is why a special term children was coined, and why there are so many legal and social exceptions made for children.

If children were men they would not need parents.

Children, if they remain healthy will unequivocally become men, and be able to make decisions for themselves.

Parents do, and understandably should, behave towards their children as they are property; their most cherished property.

This does not mean children loose their rights, that they are abused; in fact it assures they are treated with love and affections by those person who's choice and effort conceived, birthed and loves them; and it assures that children are legally able to get guidance without interference from the state or other men.

As children mature into men, the standards for how to treat a given person depending on the maturity of the given person. Likewise the way in which parents regard their children properly shifts from thinking of them as a protected possession to an autonomous adult, who is able to take care of themselves.

Edited February 4, 2010 by phibetakappa

[phibetakappa]

Like so many people you seem to read what you want and skip the rest.

Does that really sound like children are their parents' to use and dispose of?

I don't understand your point.

The fact of the matter parents do direct their children's lives. That is what to dispose of means.

Children are their parents' responsibility, and responsible parents naturally have the right to raise their children.

This is a bromide, it is not an argument. You state they "naturally" have the right to raise their children. Why? As I stated in a collectivist state parents would not have the right to raise their children. More parents every year in America are being told by various forms of government how they can and can not raise their children.

It is not an owner-property relationship, by any means.

Again, you are very obtuse. I've given dozens of reason why the parent-child relationship has similar characteristics as any other owner-property relationship.

In some cases, its ashame that people don't take care of their other property the way they take care of their children.

Try observing the facts and not reacting to the emotions the word property invokes in you. I.e., try being objective, instead of emotion driven.

Edited February 4, 2010 by phibetakappa

[masked]

A child can eat and breath. Aren't these functions the exercise of the rights to life?

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action

A young child (baby) is not self-sustaining even though it can do some self-generated actions.

Perhaps I was focusing on this being an Objectivist forum????

Too many times, someone who knows Obj. principles wants to not just attempt to clarify them but to act like the principles have to be arbitrarily challenged; the latter goes too far in my mind.

Is "children are not property" really an Obj. principle? If it is, I am sorry that I challenged your principles...

In Objectivism, children are unequivocally considered men, and all men are ends in themselves.

Men are capable to exercise the basic right (life) and since children cannot, they are not men.

Does that really sound like...

Is this an argument or a hearing test?

[softwareNerd]

A young child (baby) is not self-sustaining even though it can do some self-generated actions.

The part you quoted is about life being "self-sustaining" and 'self-generated" is about life in general: plant, animal, including human.