|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Getting Rights Right As badly mistreated as are "rights" in the realm of adults, they stand in even greater disarray when considered in regard to the status of non-adults. Here, the culprits of confusion are less any agents of the State than many people who otherwise confess a devotion to liberty. Some of these folks approach this subject as though the very notion of "rights" is a dark and mysterious subject, an ocean filled with treacherous and deceptive currents ready to ensnare and drown the unwary explorer. A variety of theories cover the gamut. Some people tell us that children have zero rights (or at a minimum, that no theory of rights adequately deals with the situation of non-adults). A subset of this crowd goes so far as to contend that children are the "property" of their parents. At the other end of this spectrum are advocates who assure us that children of any and all ages possess full human rights. These mini-me's, we are warned, should have their every decision respected and obeyed in all contexts. To do otherwise is to act with a tyranny as great or worse than that of a dictatorial State. If the initiation of force on the part of the State is improper, their reasoning goes, then it follows simply and obviously that to restrain or deny or punish a baby or a child or a teenager is likewise to violate the very bedrock of liberty and morality. To evaluate such competing contentions, it is important to consider what it means -- philosophically as well as politically -- what it means to be an "adult." Along with this first and most important step, we must also realize that when applying "rights" to non-adults, the recognition of an individual's rights is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Context -- the full context -- of any particular issue and/or its application in specific circumstances is critical in achieving an understanding that corresponds to reality. As with most issues related to (Objectivist) principles, we need to begin at the usual starting place: (human) life and its requirements. More specifically, adult human life and its requirements. As Rand pointed out, the reason there are no children to speak of in her novels is that she was concerned with establishing the meaning and application of rights in the securing of our freedom. She maintained that the ability fully to exercise one's rights is a property of adults, not children. The question is: was she correct? First of all, what is the function of rights? A person has rights that -- when properly observed -- prevent others in a social setting from (coercively) interfering with his attempts (peacefully) to actualize the decisions he reaches regarding his life. (Apart from human interaction, "rights" are irrelevant. While one would still require morality or ethics in a solitary state, only when another person[s] has the potential to initiate force against his neighbor and/or his property must we consider and enforce rights.) Second, what makes such choices available to a person? The decisions an individual reaches are possible because he possesses a volitional (free will) consciousness that provides him with the capacity for making (conceptual) choices among various alternatives. (Volitional/conceptual choices are different in kind than the perceptual choices available to other creatures. The latter are primarily of the stimulus/response, deterministic variety [acknowledging, of course, the wide variance of such behavior ranging from the level of insects to that of primates].) A person's choices arise from his nature as a "rational animal" who -- unlike other animals -- has no automatic guidelines for his behavior. Third, what is the significance of lacking such spontaneous guidelines? Because a human being does not possess ready-made answers for his survival, he must discover and accept for himself a set of guidelines, i.e., an ethics/morality, that aids him in fashioning the interpretations/judgments he reaches based on the observations/evidence he obtains from reality. His identifications (and subsequent actions) must be correct if he is to survive and prosper as a human being. Because this process is subject to error, he must be the one who benefits from his successes and who suffers from his mistakes. Anyone who attempts to short-circuit this process of investigation/identification/action/effects is thus seeking to place his consciousness above that of another person and to prevent that individual from acting according to his own best judgments regarding the nature of reality and his place within it. In other words, such criminals are violating the requirements necessary for the proper operation of a person's fundamental tool of survival, i.e., his mind. This process -- and the need for rights -- is thus dependent upon a person freely exercising his rational capacity. Fourth, what underlies an individual's conceptual faculty, i.e., the power of rational, logical thought? A person's rational capacity is physically dependent upon (though different in kind from) his brain. More specifically, an individual's rational capacity is dependent upon the undamaged development of his cerebral cortex (that area of the brain that deals with thought, reasoning, language, etc.). Thus, to be able fully to exercise his rights (that are dependent upon his rational faculty), a person must possess the physical brain components underpinning that rational capacity. He must -- at a minimum -- have completed the physical development of his brain, especially in the area of the frontal cortex (often called the "executive" of the brain). But this area of the brain is, for most people, not fully functioning until the later teen years. (See, for instance: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/onereason.html) (In another case, John Stossel reported that drivers at the age of twenty-one demonstrated far more maturity in their decisions and actions than they did at eighteen.) Given the causal linkages discussed above, I would argue that full adult rights should normally be set near where they are now, that is, around eighteen-years-old, plus or minus a couple of years. Wherever the age is set for legal recognition of full adult rights -- sixteen, eighteen, or twenty-one -- provisions should be made for individual teens to petition for full adult status, at their discretion. Reasonable proof of rational capacity (in whatever form that proof might be provided) and the ability to be self-supporting financially would be required. Full adult rights demand at least the capacity (if not the practice) of being independent. The number of grade school kids who could be independent is near zero. Many teens, however, might easily support themselves (in a modest fashion) via jobs or self-employment. But in any event, no one has the right to demand or expect full adult rights if he is incapable of or does not possess the requisite brain capacity for such independent judgment and action. (Before an individual possesses full rights, his parents have a positive obligation to provide for his basic needs. After a [teenage] person assumes the responsibility of his rights, however, any aid from his parents can only be requested, not demanded.) This process of obtaining full adult rights is neither cut-and-dried nor recognizable via some "bright-line" demarcation. The ability to make and to succeed in reaching important decisions obviously varies from person to person. Indeed, girls traditionally "mature" faster than boys. Parents then -- in consultation and negotiation with older offspring -- should set the boundaries of such decision-making based on their best understanding of their children's capacities. As their offspring mature, parents -- as part of their educational and socialization obligations -- should provide opportunities for their children to make decisions. At first, the options should be delimited by the parents so children can make safe choices. (For example, "Would you like oatmeal or cold cereal for breakfast?" Or: "Do you want to wear a dress or shorts today?") As the children (and the parents!) gain experience and confidence in such decision-making, the options should expand both in scope (the number of areas in which decisions can be made) and in the "fuzziness" of the boundaries ("Be home at a reasonable hour" as opposed to "Be home by eleven.") The concomitant results may and often will lead to an increase in errors. But errors are a means of correction and learning. If the lessons experienced from mistakes are understood and internalized, such widening freedom helps hone the young person's rational skills and his implicit confidence in his decision-making capabilities. As for the age of consent for sex, again, given the physical requirements for sexual intercourse (as opposed to a situation of, say, same-age children "playing doctor" as a means of satisfying their curiosity), this should be (at least) puberty, perhaps even teenage-hood. (Some girls today start puberty very early, in the fifth or sixth grade.) An adult engaging in sexual activity with someone below the puberty age seems far beyond the pale. A child of grade school age is too easily manipulated by an adult, a class of people children are taught to respect and -- more importantly for this discussion -- to obey. Not only are such dependents physically unready for sex, but they are without the requisite brain/intellectual development that enables them to make anything remotely resembling an informed decision in such a critical and potentially devastating area such as sexual intercourse. The borderline area of early teen years is murky, at best, and probably better left to the judgment of the parents and the teens involved rather than the State. The State cannot know enough of any particular family's situation to be the best judge of when a teen is being exploited by a sexual partner. If there is no complainant, there should be no crime. If a parent or a child -- or even a neighbor -- has reasonable evidence that a problem exists, the State may then investigate the charge. (This prohibition against automatic State intervention is to prevent the travesty of, for example, a twenty-one being charged with statutory rape with his sixteen-year-old fiancee.) Rights are too important a concept to trivialize. Anyone who is rationalistic rather than rational, who dwells on borderline cases, who adheres to the category error of thinking any (peaceful) human being can be "property," who states that children are without rights of any kind (or, conversely, who thinks an infant or toddler can decide for himself whether or not to drink poison or undergo surgery or play in the freeway; that a child's desires must be deferred to in any and all areas of life), who treats "rights" as rules rather than principles, who seeks ready-made answers to follow blindly rather than guidelines to aid his thinking, any such person is a few bottles short of a six-pack. Such nonsensical conclusions, such absurdities passed off as thoughtful evaluations evade the very requirements of rationality and rights and the reality of developmental processes in human life. As long as a child is physically and mentally incapable of independence, his parents are obligated to offer the support he requires to survive and to develop. But along with such a responsibility comes authority and the (moral and legal) right to make basic decisions for their child. Responsibility without power is slavery. Statists misuse this relationship between power and responsibility to deprive adults of their rights. Parents must live by it. They must do so in order to ensure that their wards one day can exercise their full adult rights. So, too, then must children accept this reality, unpleasant though it may be at times from the perspective of a thwarted child. Even if parents make mistakes in their judgments and their children suffer accordingly (given the delimitation of abuse, of course), this relationship between responsibility and authority endures and must be respected by outsiders. No one has the right to impose his will on (peaceful, adult) others. No one.
Discuss this Article (3 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
