Journal of Social Philosophy 45 (4):522-538 (2014)

Authors
Joseph Millum
National Institutes of Health
Abstract
It is common to cite the child’s “right to an open future” in discussions of how parents and the state may and should treat children. However, the right to an open future can only be useful in these discussions if we have some method for deriving the content of the right. In the paper in which he introduces the right to an open future Joel Feinberg seems to provide such a method: he derives the right from the content of adult autonomy rights. In this paper I argue that his argument fails. If it is to give us guidance about the content of the child’s right to an open future, then the right should be interpreted as a right to a maximally open future. But this strong interpretation is unjustified: the arguments that can be found in Feinberg in favor of the right are invalid, and, in any case, this interpretation has implausible implications. A moderate interpretation of the right to an open future, according to which children have a right to acquire some reasonable range of skills and options, is more plausible. However, if a moderate interpretation is correct, there is not only no argument in Feinberg to support it, there is also no method for deriving the content of the right. Without such a method we have to bring in other moral considerations in order to work out the limits on parental discretion and what children are owed. The right to an open future then does no normative work.
Keywords Feinberg  Children  Open future
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/josp.12076
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Nicotine Conjugate Vaccine: Is There a Right to a Smoking Future?A. Hasman - 2004 - Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (4):344-345.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Whose Harm? Which Metaphysic?Abram Brummett - 2019 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 40 (1):43-61.
Gene Editing, the Mystic Threat to Human Dignity.Vera Raposo - 2019 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 16 (2):249-257.
Well-Being, Opportunity, and Selecting for Disability.Andrew Schroeder - 2018 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 14 (1).

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Can Culture Justify Infant Circumcision?Eldar Sarajlic - 2014 - Res Publica 20 (4):327-343.
Child's Right to an Open Future.Dena S. Davis - 2002 - Hastings Center Report 32 (5):6.
The Child's Right to an Open Future?Claudia Mills - 2003 - Journal of Social Philosophy 34 (4):499–509.
Feinberg, Mills, and the Child's Right to an Open Future.Mianna Lotz - 2006 - Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (4):537–551.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-12-04

Total views
292 ( #29,884 of 2,432,740 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
31 ( #25,548 of 2,432,740 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes