The Convention explains who children are, all their rights and the responsibilities of governments. All rights are interdependent, they are all of equal importance and they cannot be taken away from children. Children are young people. Some children are very young. As human beings, children obviously have a certain moral status. There are things that should not be done to them, for the simple reason that they are human. At the same time, children are different from adult humans and it seems reasonable to think that there are things that children are not allowed to do, that adults are allowed to do. For example, in most jurisdictions, children are not allowed to vote, marry, buy alcohol, have sex, or engage in paid employment. Similarly, there are things that probably shouldn`t be done to children because they are children, such as conscription for military service. What makes children a special case for philosophical reflection is this combination of their humanity and youth, or, more precisely, what is supposed to be associated with their youth. A very obvious way to ask the question of what children do, are or are allowed to have is the following question: do children have rights? If so, do they have all the rights that adults have, and do they have rights that adults do not? If they have no rights, how can we ensure that they are treated morally properly? Most jurisdictions grant legal rights to children. Most countries – with the exception of the United States – have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was first adopted in 1989.
The Convention grants children a wide range of rights, including, in particular, the right to have their “best interests a primary consideration” in all acts affecting them (Article 3), the “inherent right to life” (Article 6) and the right of a child “capable of forming his or her own views”. to express these views freely in all matters concerning the child” (Article 12) (United Nations 1989). However, it is normal to distinguish between “positive” rights, which are recognized by law, and “moral” rights, which are recognized by a moral theory. The fact that children have “positive” rights does not clarify whether they have or should have moral rights. However, there are at least good political reasons why one might think that the CRC is making an exemplary statement – in the language of positive rights – about how children should be treated and respected. Nevertheless, the idea that children are rights holders has been the subject of various philosophical criticisms. At the same time, a philosophical reflection was given on the rights of children, if they have any. The various debates highlighted the nature and value of rights and the moral status of children. One possible response to O`Neill`s argument is as follows (Coady 1992). It does not deny that perfect duties correlate with rights. To the extent that we have perfect obligations to children, they have corresponding rights. However, O`Neill denies that imperfect obligations correlate with rights.
But why should we think that? Imperfect obligations are fundamental. They are not supererogatory, that is, beyond duty. Adults should show consideration and kindness to children in general. So why can`t children claim such kindness and consideration from adults as their right? O`Neill says that when imperfect obligations are institutionalized — for example, when there are laws and institutions that determine who should act and how child abuse can be exposed and prevented — positive special commitments are created that correspond to positive rights. But she adds that the social worker`s commitments, say, go beyond the positive commitments associated with her work. However, this applies to all our commitments, whether perfect or imperfect. A parent may have positive obligations, i.e. legally recognized and sanctioned obligations towards their child.
But her perfect obligations to her children are not exhaustively defined by what the law requires of her. Children can choose their own thoughts, opinions and religions, but this should not prevent others from enjoying their rights. Parents can guide children to learn how to use this right properly when they grow up. Broader disagreements about what is best for children or for a child is often placed in the context of broader cultural disagreements about morality in general. GDP is said to be undermined, or at least deeply problematic, by the existence of these deep and pervasive cultural disagreements (Alston (ed.) 1994). Caution is advised. The statement “What is best for a child is different in different cultures” is ambiguous. First, the phrase “in different cultures” can be interpreted to mean something like “in different circumstances.” Most moral philosophers will recognize that a universal moral principle on which everyone agrees may nevertheless have different applications in different circumstances specified. Here we don`t discuss what is usually best for a child. But we recognize that what is best for each child depends on the particular circumstances in which he or she finds himself. Since children are human beings, they are certainly entitled to basic human rights. But there are certain rights that adults have that children cannot.
This view is shared by Brennan and Noggle (Brennan and Gggle, 1997). Adult rights are “role-based rights”. These are rights associated with specific roles, and possession of the corresponding right depends on the ability to play the role. Thus, doctors have rights that their patients do not have, and motorists have rights that those who have failed their driving test do not have. This argument is interesting, not least because it does not make a fundamental distinction between adults and children with regard to their rights. Finally, some adults may not possess more than the basic rights that children possess because they may not have the skills required to play any of the roles associated with role-based rights. Scientific studies usually focus on children`s rights by identifying individual rights. The following rights “enable children to grow up healthy and free”: [24] The courts have imposed further restrictions on parental powers and actions. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Prince V.
Massachusetts has ruled that a parent`s religion does not allow a child to be put in danger. [39] In Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary held that parental rights diminish with the age and competence of the child, but do not disappear completely until the child reaches the age of majority. Parental rights derive from the duties of parents towards the child. In the absence of an obligation, there is no parental right. [40] [41] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in E. (woman) v. the night before that parents cannot grant surrogacy for non-therapeutic sterilization. [42] The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in B. (R.) v. Children`s Aid Society of Greater Toronto: What about a child`s right to be heard? It will be important for the child to be listened to. But it is also important that the child is heard in the sense that his or her views are duly taken into account and can influence what is done.
Note that the right of the child to be heard on matters affecting his or her own interests is a substitute for the right to make his or her own decisions. The right to be heard is only a right to have the opportunity to influence the person who chooses the child otherwise. The power to make these decisions rests with the child`s adult guardian or representative. All the child retains is the right to try to motivate that adult to choose as the child himself would choose if he were allowed to do so. Allow children to be, in principle, the rights holders because of what it means to have a right. Should children have rights? And if so, what rights should they have? Note that rights may be moral or legal. Children have legal rights (especially under the UN Convention). These should not be accepted as moral rights. However, someone might believe that the best way to protect the interests of children is to continue to give them the legal rights they have under something like the Convention. Someone might also believe that children should have legal rights, but not those currently granted to them.
Conversely, if children have moral rights, they do not need to be enshrined in law, although there is obviously a strong presumption of rights against them. First and foremost, it is a question of whether children should have moral rights. If so, there would be good reason to believe that these should be legally protected rights. What kind of adult does your child want to develop? The answer to this question is important, especially in pointing out appropriate restrictions on parental education. There is a very influential and recognizable and liberal view of the type of adult a child has an interest in developing. It is an autonomous individual, able to independently evaluate his own goals and, if necessary, to choose. From a liberal point of view, a child is not autonomous, but with proper upbringing, he can become autonomous. This view is most directly opposed to an idea of the individual, endowed with a set of values and beliefs acquired in an authoritarian manner in childhood as a result of his education, which are not, or at least not open, to essential revision.
Recent Comments