| | Hi Matthew! Thanks for beginning this discussion. I also believe that the status of children is something that is largely ignored by the Objectivist community in general. It's a timely and important topic for me because I have kids (well, one and one on the way).
Most of what I've been thinking about has already been said, but I wanted to make a couple of points. Concerning the rights of children, my take on it is this (and may be revised as I think through it more and discuss with others): the rights of children are held in trust by the parents. Parents accept this responsibility as part of having children. As children progress from completely dependent nonrational beings to progressively more independent, more rational children, teenagers, young adults, etc., a rational, responsible parent gradually "lets go" of the child's responsibilities, allowing the child to own more of the consequences (good and bad) of his actions.
An example might be managing money. A very small child has no concern for money--can't earn it, spend it, conduct business with it. An older child might put together a lemonade stand type of business or do extra work around the house in order to save money for something they desire. A teenager may hold a job. I think it's reasonable for a parent to make the vast majority (or all) of a child's purchasing/saving decisions when the child is very small. As the child gets older and learns more about money, earning it, buying stuff, etc., the parent need not and should not make those spending/saving decisions for the child. Obviously, there can be no hard and fast rule as to how this is handled. Ideally, the parents and child will work out something that is mutually beneficial.
The second thing I'd like to comment on is the concern that a child raised by Objectivists might embrace the bible one day (and vice versa). The most parents can do is raise their children to understand how to think critically, to understand the consequences of their actions. Children are not always going to make choices that we agree with. But those choices are their own, and parents should be willing to allow the children to experience the consequences of those choices. This is where I see the "house rules" idea come into play. If my kids want to be religious, I will be disappointed, disagree with it, hate it. I also know that the consequences of them failing to exercise their rational faculties will catch up to them eventually. I will have to be able to let it go, to a certain extent, assuming there is still something of our relationship that I wish to hold on to. And this is where they will need to respect my desires, too. For example, I don't and won't say grace before a meal in my house. If my kids want to eat dinner, especially if I'm providing it, then they will need to respect that house rule. (The same goes for rap music! I'm thinking that if it is absolutely necessary for them to listen to it, they can do it out of earshot of me!)
This is my first stab at trying to articulate my thoughts on this topic which is so much of interest to me. I welcome your ideas and thoughts.
~Jenn
(By the way, I also found some of the comments regarding parenthood as some sort of altruistic, self-sacrificial state of existence to be funny, naive, and dead wrong. Since nobody has commented on this issue, at least in this thread, I just wanted to state my thoughts for the record. But that's for another post--maybe an article.)
|
|
