| | Deanna wrote in Post 29:
Interesting point regarding property rights and the appearance of ownership. I wonder, is there any point at which time a child gains full ownership of anything?
For instance, [...] let's say you provide an outfit of clothes for your child. At what point does the child achieve "paid in full" status of that outfit of clothes? And if he does so, wouldn't you be obligated to allow him to leave home wearing those clothes?
Please realize the story in Post 6 illustrated a parent's rhetorical skills at keeping his young son in line and out of trouble. Of course I would expect a good parent to provide an adequate amount of private property in the form of clothes once the time comes for that child to leave home. In any case, an older teenage runaway who takes a suitcase of clothes from his closet with him would never get convicted in a court of law for stealing those clothes.
Jon wrote in Post 30:
Placed her in the backseat? No child restraint?! [...] That mom needs a good bitch-slapping.
Be my guest, but you will lose. At the time she told us her story, the teacher already neared retirement age. If you met her, you would see that her size exceeds yours and mine combined. In any case, even if she did restrain her daughter in the back seat and let her change in a restroom on the way to school, the basic lesson remains the same. As for child restraints, as far as I know, the law did not require them for five year olds at the time this event transpired many years ago and few parents gave the issue any thought. I am 40 now and I remember outgrowing my child restraint before kindergarten and never wearing a seat belt in the back seat.
Ted wrote in Post 31:
The bond is completely and utterly rational, as in natural. The problem is that some people have a theory of man that discounts his biology at the expense of treating rationality, which is his essential attribute, almost as if it were his only attribute.
The book Mind Wide Open by Steven Johnson documents the bonding hormones released following childbirth. The associated emotions generate positive feelings anchoring the parents with the offspring. So I agree that Objectivism needs to account for this phenomenon. That said, a parent must still accept the fact that his offspring will eventually grow into an adult fully responsible for his actions and thus subject to the same rigorous moral judgment as everyone else.
I just thought of yet another story to share:
The Horny Teenage Boy Who Hit the Highway
Years ago, a retired member of Mensa told us a story of his older teenage son and their parting of ways. One evening the young man breezed through the living room, chuckling, and told his parents quite casually, "I am spending the night at my girlfriend's house." His conservative mother became up in arms and his father called him on his nonsense. "Listen here, young man! I will not have you upsetting your mother in this way and scoffing at our values. You already know how we feel about that. You will not spend the night at your girlfriend's house. We expect you home at the normal curfew hour."
The son refused to comply and stormed out of the house. To show the boy he meant business, the father packed all the son's belongings and placed them onto the porch. He wanted to show him who commanded the property there. He thought surely his son would get the message and apologize so he would have a place to stay. Instead, the next morning, the father opened the door to see all the packed belongings had vanished! In a case of "my way or the highway," his son took "the highway" option. So the father let him! Why not? If his son felt that prepared to leave home, the father would not stop him.
I have had arguments on this forum in the past about parental leniency and how much slack a parent ought morally to give his child. I can really find little fault with this approach. It looks to me like everyone won in this conflict with no "discussions" or "arguments" or "debates" needed.
(Edited by Luke Setzer on 12/02, 3:07am)
|
|
Deanna,