1
   

DOES IT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS ?

 
 
Reply Sat 21 Jul, 2007 09:27 pm
If a horse gets loose and escapes from his human owner,
the owner will most likely go in pursuit,
and bring him back. No one believes that the wishes
of the fugitive horse are significant.

Suppose that a child ( shall we say, 12 years old ? )
feels the allure of the open road, puts on his hat,
bids thanx, farewell and departs,
does he thereby violate the moral rights of his parents ?

Do thay have a moral RIGHT to his continued presence,
as thay did with the horse ?


( This is a different question than whether he has a RIGHT
to remain and be supported by his parents; let us assume that he waives that right. )
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,801 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
lostnsearching
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 07:42 am
your comparing the horse with a human(even though a child) is rather confusing.

The horse departs on its choice but has no 'Option' but to come back if the owner finds it.... the horse can not argue or express it's views or desires ...
and like you mentioned..."No one believes that the wishes of the horse are significant"

but in the case of a child... The child has options to decide from, his/her decisions are based on knowledge or understanding, his/her feelings are considered and the child can always express his/her intentions...

as it gets to the parents.... Did they have a 'moral' right to the continued presence of the horse once it escaped????

**************

Accepting the fact that I don't understand your question properly...
0 Replies
 
mushypancakes
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 11:24 am
Total nonsense.

Even a horse could "tell" you that. And he or she would tell you! Just because you'd disregard what he/she had to say, that doesn't make it so.

You yell maybe so you will be heard, but you don't listen. So how in the world will you know if people are listening to YOU?

Getting old, my friend.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 02:05 pm
Thank u for that information.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 02:26 pm
lostnsearching wrote:


Quote:
your comparing the horse with a human(even though a child) is rather confusing.

OK.
My own philosophical point of vu
is that the child has the OPPORTUNITY
to have the financial support of his parents, but NOT any DUTY
to remain with them.

He has the moral right to leave
and to go his own way, if he chooses to waive his right to his parents' support.

I don 't believe that everyone agrees with me.
For instance, when 6 year old Elian Gonzalez said on TV
that he wished to remain living in America
( rather than to become a communist slave in Cuba ),
people thought that his choice had no greater meaning than
the barking of a dog, and he was dragged back into communist slavery,
just because his dad is a communist.
He lost a lifetime of freedom, because of the choice of his FATHER
instead of his own choice for freedom being honored.

A child who leaves will have gigantic problems
in supporting himself
, but if he chooses to do that, he is within his own moral rights,
because he owns himself; neither his parents, nor anyone else own him.



Do we own ourselves ?
or do other people own us ( at ANY age ) ?

Its a question of sovereignty and autonomy.

David
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 02:36 pm
That is interesting. It would certainly be consequent to allow a child to elect her/his .... school, lawmaker, ... everything.

When a parent sends his/her child to Sunday school but the child wants to go boozing - it's of course its right, you think?

When a child makes sex with an adult, why not, you suggest?

Its a question of sovereignty and autonomy?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 03:07 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:


Quote:
That is interesting.

Thank u, Walter. I try.





Quote:
It would certainly be consequent to allow a child to elect her/his ....
school, lawmaker, ... everything.

Well, inasmuch as children are required to obey the law,
thay have the moral right to participate in the political process
of legislation by voting for politicicans of their choice,
or running for political office themselves,
and letting the voters accept them or reject them, like anyone else.

As to choice of school,
there may arise questions of financing, for which the parents
need not be forced to give him whatever he demands.






Quote:
When a parent sends his/her child to Sunday school but the child wants
to go boozing - it's of course its right, you think?

Well, he did not relinquish the freedom to do that,
however, possibly the parents might negotiate with him
as to terms and conditions of his receiving free food and shelter from them.




Quote:
When a child makes sex with an adult, why not, you suggest?

I rather LIKED IT, when I was 11.
One young lady was 17, whom I met on a bus
from Los Angeles to Phoenix, Arizona, where I resided at the time
and on another occasion, another young lady in California was 23.
I am rather pleased that those incidents occurred.





Quote:

Its a question of sovereignty and autonomy?

Yes; those r important questions.
David
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 03:52 pm
Wow!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 04:12 pm
YEAH !
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 04:48 pm
I thought you were some kind of attorney. Seems like you'd know about the emacipation of minors: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/emancipation_of_minors/
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 07:24 pm
boomerang wrote:
I thought you were some kind of attorney. Seems like you'd know about the emacipation of minors: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/emancipation_of_minors/

This forum is for considering philosophy
and for debating. It is not for legal research.
As I said previously,
I am referring to the moral rights of parents and of children
( like Elian Gonzales vs. his communist dad ).

The law of the state, and the state of the law
is arbitrary and has been very different
over the centuries and in different countries.
For instance, in some cultures, girls have been legally killed
by their fathers for refusing to marry the choice of their dads.

If I wanna check the law of any particular jurisdiction,
I can use Lexis Nexis or Westlaw.
I do not ask laymen to tell me what the law is,
nor do I resort to secondary legal commentary
that is devoid of supportive citation to statutory or judicial authority
( such as the one in your link ).


At the beginning of this thread,
I said :

" Suppose that a child ( shall we say, 12 years old ? )
feels the allure of the open road, puts on his hat,
bids thanx, farewell and departs,
does he thereby violate the moral rights of his parents ?

Do thay have a moral RIGHT to his continued presence,
as thay did with the horse ? " [ emphasis added]

David
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 07:54 pm
What the hell is a moral right?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:08 pm
boomerang wrote:
What the hell is a moral right?


A moral right is a natural right;
e.g., suppose on an island with no government
( hence, no legislation ) u encounter a man and his property.

U will violate his natural rights
if u steal his property, or enslave him,
or if u kill him, without a good reason, like self defense.
David
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:17 pm
That's not a definition, that's "let's pretend".
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:33 pm
boomerang wrote:
That's not a definition, that's "let's pretend".



We don t have to pretend:
when the communists invaded the Baltics,
thay enslaved the local population under communism,
violating their natural rights.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 09:49 pm
AAAAaaaaannnnnnnnddddd

that still isn't a definition.

<yawn>
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jul, 2007 11:41 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
boomerang wrote:
That's not a definition, that's "let's pretend".



We don t have to pretend:
when the communists invaded the Baltics,
thay enslaved the local population under communism,
violating their natural rights.


Well, before the communists were there, Germans and before them Slavic and Gemanic tribes invaded those regions.

That's quite ridicule as source for a moral right. (And why exactly this example, whic really is stupid since those regions were invaded x-times by various different others during the last 2.000 years.)
0 Replies
 
lostnsearching
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 01:37 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
lostnsearching wrote:


Quote:
your comparing the horse with a human(even though a child) is rather confusing.

OK.
My own philosophical point of vu
is that the child has the OPPORTUNITY
to have the financial support of his parents, but NOT any DUTY
to remain with them.

He has the moral right to leave
and to go his own way, if he chooses to waive his right to his parents' support.

I don 't believe that everyone agrees with me.
For instance, when 6 year old Elian Gonzalez said on TV
that he wished to remain living in America
( rather than to become a communist slave in Cuba ),
people thought that his choice had no greater meaning than
the barking of a dog, and he was dragged back into communist slavery,
just because his dad is a communist.
He lost a lifetime of freedom, because of the choice of his FATHER
instead of his own choice for freedom being honored.

A child who leaves will have gigantic problems
in supporting himself
, but if he chooses to do that, he is within his own moral rights,
because he owns himself; neither his parents, nor anyone else own him.



Do we own ourselves ?
or do other people own us ( at ANY age ) ?

Its a question of sovereignty and autonomy.

David


Do we own ourselves?
A very interesting question....
And the answer varies from place to place....
but Mostly no matter how good we try to be independent...one way or the other we DON'T own ourselves....
and us bieng easily influenced by another is kinda an example of that.... (in a different way)

Getting back to the main issue of the child...
well David, what you have explained is rather acceptable.... but do you think that (now, practically applying to real life) the child has enough understanding and knowledge to make such a decision? do you think that the child's choice is based on logic and is it rational?

A very young child doesn't... but with experience and proper observations...when the child's horizon expands... he/she can decide which route his/her life should take....

"the barking of a dog, and he was dragged back into communist slavery,
just because his dad is a communist.
He lost a lifetime of freedom, because of the choice of his FATHER
instead of his own choice for freedom being honored."

LIFETIME!!!

In all due respect, even if it isn't very common, we DO own ourselves... or are supposed to, at the very least....

That example could also be that of 'forcing' and modern-day slavery(of different forms...such as IN THE HOME!)
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 07:26 am
Do we own ourselves?

Do we actually "own" anything? when it comes down to it we have no more right to own a horse as we have a right to own a human being, its all a matter of perspective.

My answer is yes the child does have the right to leave if he wants, And he will most likely return if he isnt capable of sustaining himself on his own. He will be learning important life lessons!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2007 07:34 am
I can't believe how dull-witted this thesis is. The law does not consider the "moral" position of the child, or the wishes of the child. The law considers the the parents are responsible for the child--responsible in the sense that the parents are the guarantors of the child's good behavior, and responsible in the sense that the law requires the parents to house, and clothe, and feed and educate the child.

If a horse gets loose, and it tramples a man's newly planted field, and eats another man's fodder--the owner of the horse if responsible for the losses those others have suffered. Additionally, the law with regard to prohibiting cruelty to animals requires the owner to adequately care for the horse.

The case with children is even stronger in that children will one day enter society as members of that society to be held responsible for their behavior, and in the circumstance, the behavior of any children whom they produce. What the child wants, and what one could or could not allege is the "moral" position of the child is meaningless--society requires the adult to care for and regulate the behavior of the child.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » DOES IT VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF PARENTS ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 05:35:13