102 research outputs found
Children's Vulnerability and Legitimate Authority Over Children
Children's vulnerability gives rise to duties of justice towards children and determines when authority over them is legitimately exercised. I argue for two claims. First, children's general vulnerability to objectionable dependency on their caregivers entails that they have a right not to be subject to monopolies of care, and therefore determines the structure of legitimate authority over them. Second, children's vulnerability to the loss of some special goods of childhood determines the content of legitimate authority over them. My interest is in the so-far little-discussed goods of engaging in world discovery, artistic creation, philosophical pursuits and experimentation with one's self. I call these âspecial goods of childhoodâ because individuals, in general, only have full access to them during childhood and they make a distinctive and weighty contribution to wellbeing. Therefore, they are part of the metric of justice towards children. The overall conclusion is that we ought to make good institutional care part of every child's upbringing
Child-rearing With Minimal Domination: A Republican Account
Parenting involves an extraordinary degree of power over children. Republicans are concerned about domination, which, on one view, is the holding of power that fails to track the interests of those over whom it is exercised. On this account, parenting as we know it is dominating due to the low standards necessary for acquiring and retaining parental rights and the extent of parental power. Domination cannot be fully eliminated from child-rearing without unacceptable loss of value. Most likely, republicanism requires that we minimise childrenâs domination. I examine alternative models of child-rearing that are immune to republican criticism
The feminist argument against supporting care
Care-supporting policies incentivise womenâs withdrawal from the labour market, thereby reinforcing statistical discrimination and further undermining equality of opportunities between women and men for positions of advantage. This, I argue, is not sufficient reason against such policies. Supporting care also improves the overall condition of disadvantaged women who are care-givers; justice gives priority to the latter. Moreover, some of the most advantageous existing jobs entail excessive benefits; we should discount the value of allocating such jobs meritocratically. Further, women who have a real chance to occupy positions of advantage have most likely already enjoyed more than their fair share of opportunities; they lack a claim to more. Women can have a complaint grounded in the expressive disvalue of sexist discrimination. This gives them special claims against men occupying the vast majority of top positions and against their higher share of opportunities for positions of advantage. But their claim does not speak against care-supporting policies
Gender justice and the welfare state in post-communism
Some Romanian feminist scholars argue that welfare policies of post-communist states are deeply unjust to women and preclude them from reaching economic autonomy. The upshot of this argument is that liberal economic policy would advance feminist goals better than the welfare state. How should we read this dissonance between Western and some Eastern feminist scholarship concerning distributive justice? I identify the problem of dependency at the core of a possible debate about feminism and welfare. Worries about how decades of communism have shaped citizenry feed feminists' suspicion of the welfare state and fears of paternalist policies. I criticize the arguments in favour of neoliberal policies and I suggest a crucial distinction between legitimate, universal forms of human dependency and dependencies that result from particular social arrangements
Token worries
There are many grounds to object to tokenism, but that doesnât mean we should always avoid being the token woman, argues Anca Gheau
Unfinished Adults and Defective Children: On the Nature and Value of Childhood
Traditionally, most philosophers saw childhood as a state of deficiency and thought that its value was entirely dependent on how successfully it prepares individuals for adulthood. Yet, there are good reasons to think that childhood also has intrinsic value. Children possess certain intrinsically valuable abilities to a higher degree than adults. Moreover, going through a phase when one does not yet have a âself of oneâs own,â and experimenting oneâs way to a stable self, seems intrinsically valuable. I argue that children can have good lives, on several understandings of well-being â as a pleasurable state, as the satisfaction of simple desires or as the realization of certain objective goods. In reply to the likely objection that only individuals capable of morality can have intrinsic value, I explain why it is plausible that children have sufficient moral agency to be as deserving of respect as adults
Biological Parenthood: Gestational, Not Genetic
Common sense morality and legislations around the world ascribe normative relevance to biological connections between parents and children. Procreators who meet a modest standard of parental competence are believed to have a right to rear the children they brought into the world. I explore various attempts to justify this belief and find most of these attempts lacking. I distinguish between two kinds of biological connections between parents and children: the genetic link and the gestational link. I argue that the second can better justify a right to rear
Recommended from our members
Bridging Gaps: Care, Rights And Virtue
The aim of this paper is to argue that the ethic of care and an ethics
conceptualised in terms of rights are complementary approaches, which can be integrated into the same ethical discourse. The starting point of the analysis will be the observation that the language and the content of morality can not be reduced to rights: Departing from the experience of being sensitive towards others as a daily component of womenâs moral life, and noticing the impossibility of translating this experience into the language of rights, feminists have claimed that the standards of moral maturity which function in our society (i.e. the ability to formulate moral dilemmas in terms of rights and duties) are an expression of a masculine way of conceiving morality and, as a result, deprive women of the status of full moral agency
Basic Income, Gender Justice and the Costs of Gender-Symmetrical Lifestyles
I argue that, in the currently gender-unjust societies a basic income would not advance feminist goals. To assess the impact of a social policy on gender justice I propose the following criterion: a society is gender-just when the costs of engaging in a lifestyle characterized by gender-symmetry (in both the domestic and public spheres) are, for both men and women, smaller or equal to the costs of engaging in a gender-asymmetrical lifestyle. For a significant number of women, a basic income would increase the costs of leading gender-symmetrical lifestyles because it would make it easier for both women and men to pursue gender-unjust preferences. I argue that preference satisfaction is distinct from justice. I conclude by showing why a basic income would lead to further privatisation of caregiving, and I outline the negative effects this would have on women
The Best Available Parent
There is a broad philosophical consensus that both childrenâs and prospective parentsâ interests are relevant to the justification of a right to parent. Against this view, I argue that it is impermissible to sacrifice childrenâs interests for the sake of advancing adultsâ interest in childrearing. Therefore, the allocation of the moral right to parent should track the childâs, and not the potential parentâs, interest. This revisionary thesis is moderated by two additional qualifications. First, parents lack the moral right to exclude others from associating with the child. Second, children usually come into the world as part of a relationship with their gestational mother; often, this relationship deserves protection
- âŠ