Libertarianism, Autonomy, And Children
Public Affairs Quarterly 5 (4):333-352 (1991)
| Abstract | IBERTARIANS hold that we have such duties as: not to directly and significantly harm others or their property, to keep agreements, to refrain from lying and certain other sorts of deception, and to compensate those whom we wrong. They also hold that we have a duty not to interfere with the liberty of others as long as they are fulfilling these duties. This duty of non-interference, they have thought, has protected the privacy of the home, and hence parental autonomy, for it insures that others have no authority over or responsibility for (except in extreme circumstances) how parents raise or treat their children. (Why parental autonomy has been held to be protected by this duty of non—in_terference should be clear enough: for if (as is surely plausible) the main effect of that duty is to secure for adults the liberty (within limits) to live their private lives as they choose, then, on the natural assumption that the matter of how to raise one`s children falls within the domain of the private lives of adults, intervention by others, and in particular by the state, for the purpose of ensuring that children get raised in one way rather than another, would be impermissible.) More specifically to our purposes now, libertarians have supposed that the duty of non-interference leaves intact parents` perogative to decide if, and in what way, their children are to be educated. That this is crucial both to the degree and to the point of parental autonomy is clear enough. For it goes both to the matter of keeping out of the private home those who would provide education for children (if such is the wish of the parents), and to the matter of parents` entitlement to instill in their children the values that they (the parents) wish their children to have. Libertarians, however, have not had very much specific to say about the moral status of children. Are children owned by their parents? Do they have all the rights and duties that normal adults have'? Or is their status somewhere in between these extremes? Given that libertarians haven't said, there are different possible ways of extending traditional libertarian theory so as to cover children.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDoret Ruyter Leonie le Sagdee (2008). Criminal Parental Responsibility: Blaming Parents on the Basis of Their Duty to Control Versus Their Duty to Morally Educate Their Children. Educational Philosophy and Theory 40 (6):789-802.
T. M. Wilkinson (2001). Parental Consent and the Use of Dead Children's Bodies. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11 (4):337-358.
Hugh LaFollette (1998). Circumscribed Autonomy: Children, Care, and Custody. In Uma Narayan & Julia Bartkowiak (eds.), Having and Raising Children. Penn State University Press.
Daniel Friedrich (2013). A Duty to Adopt? Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (1):25-39.
David Archard & Colin M. [eds] Macleod (eds.) (2002). The Moral and Political Status of Children. OUP Oxford.
Veronique Munoz-Dardé (2002). Family, Choice and Distributive Justice. In David Archard & Colin Macleod (eds.), The Moral and Political Status of Children. Oxford University Press.
David Archard (1990). Child Abuse: Parental Rights and the Interests of the Child. Journal of Applied Philosophy 7 (2):183-194.
Linda Eyre (1982/1994). Teaching Your Children Responsibility. Simon & Schuster.
Michael W. Austin (2007). Fundamental Interests and Parental Rights. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2):221-235.
Michael W. Austin (2007). Fundamental Interests and Parental Rights. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2):221-235.
S. Matthew Liao (2006). The Right of Children to Be Loved. Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (4):420–440.
Timothy F. Murphy (2005). Gay Science: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Sexual Orientation of Children. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 10 (Sup. 1):102-106.
Timothy F. Murphy (2009). Choosing Disabilities and Enhancements in Children: A Choice Too Far? Reproductie Biomedicine Online 2009 (18 sup. 1):43-49.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-01-20Total downloads20 ( #61,504 of 549,049 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,049 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
