BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN
[From Journal of Social Philosophy,Vol. 23 (Winter 1992), pp. 16-22.]
Tibor R. Machan

Some Moral Dimension In Parent-Child relations
    We tend to take it for granted that there are certain moral dimensions
to the parent-child relationship.  Such concepts as parental authority,
child abuse, the duty to obey, and so forth suggests this plainly enough.
We also distinguish between the l egal and the moral dimensions of
parent-child relationships when, for example, we refer to the legally
enforceable duty of child support or children's rights that may be
protected by law versus a parent's moral responsibility to teach values
and the child 's responsibility to help around the house.=20
     Yet it is not entirely clear just how these moral components of the
parent-child relationship arise.  So what if children are begot ten by
parents?  Why does this obligate parents to do anything special?  And what
if the child refuses to obey his par ents?  What is wrong with that
besides a kind of recklessness inviting untoward repercussions from the
parents?  Certainly much of the law across the civilized world affirms the
obligation of parents and children but that is insufficient for purposes
of u nderstanding what is going on.  For example, when children challenge
a parent, or when a parent is merely considering how to behave toward
children, these questions need to be answered independently of the law.=20
Since much of family life is carried on beh ind closed doors, mere legal
guidelines would not suffice to steer people in the right direction.=20
     I want here to suggest an understanding of the moral dimensions of
parent-child relations that has not only the virtue of making this matter
clearer than it may be now but also the virtue of making the matter
accessible to the participants.  In short , I wish to propose a way to
answer the relevant questions that can be understood by most participants
- ordinary parents and children.  In particular I am concerned to explore
why children should obey their parents and what parents owe their children
and why.

An Implicit Contract
     It seems that one way to understand parents' authority over their
children and its limits - which includes why children should obey their
parents - is by answering the question, "What would one's child have
wanted one to do for (and may be to) him or her when she turns out to be a
grown person?"  Then if one wishes to know what one's obligations are to
one's children, we may take it that upon accepting the role of parents one
has agreed to deal with one's children according to what the answer to
this questions would have been. It is implicit in the answer to this
question what it is that children would want their parents do to and for
them - that is, what it is that parents owe to children.=20
      Moreover, I suggest also that this is a fruitful way to go about
discovering why parents have authority over children that children ought
to accept.=20
     Would a grown person wish that his parents have guided him in certain
ways when he was young?  Would he ask for some sternness in this guidance
- e.g., the parents should not permit him to take up smoking, make him go
to bed at a reasonable hour so a s to get sufficient rest for the next
day, insist on his doing his homework, etc.?  More specifically, say a
child has discernible musical talent.  Would the grown up who had been
this child have wanted his or her parents to have applied reasonably stern
discipline about developing this talent?  If so, and if what parents ought
to do is rear their children to grow into mature and fulfilled adults,
then this would inform them about what they ought to do for and even to
their children.  In general terms, i t seems that parents ought to rear
their children as they could figure a grown version of the same child
would ask them to.=20
     The same would appear to hold about general moral standards and mores
as with measures pertaining to individual development.  Parents or
guardians would seem to owe their children what the adult version of the
child would rationally propose they shou ld have done. (Notice that this
rationality limitation includes not demanding the impossible - e.g., what
would have been economically unfeasible or beyond the parents other
capacities.)

Personal Autonomy and the Child
      Why does this appear to be a fruitful approach to determining the
obligations parents have toward their children?  Because it takes into
account what a grown adult would want to have been done for and to him as
a child takes into account the individ uality of the child.=20
     A crucial element of self-development is becoming who one will be by
choice, not because one has been molded into what someone else decided one
will have to become in life.  This rational reconstructive approach to
child-rearing does justice to that point.  That is, this approach does
justice to a human being's essential autonomy or free will.  If we keep in
focus what the adult version of our child would want us to do about is or
her development, we give early recognition to the role of autonomous c
hoice, if only in a surrogate fashion.  We, as parents, stand in for the
adult version of our child and thus give the child a kind of
self-direction.=20
      In addition this approach also ensures the requisite amount of
socialization or moral teaching from parents.  A grown person would not
reasonably desire that he or she would have been brought up without regard
to sound moral standards.  Since moral teaching involves disputed notions
- especially if complete moralities are being taught rather than common
sense moral ideals - parent moral teaching would always have to be
somewhat provisional, aware of the likelihood of eventual challenge and
thus will ing to defend moral teaching by references to reasons the child
could understand and eventually evaluate.  It would be evident that either
mere indoctrination or indifference to moral issues would constitute, at
least in part, neglectful child rearing.=20
     As to what children owe their parents and why, the issue might be
approached by way of what parents need from children to make a feasible
household and a developing child possible.  A child should obey the
parents because this is the child's best opt ion for development, so long
as parents are endeavoring to promote the child's development.  Yet, since
children are not able to assess this readily enough, the general
prescription "Obey your parents" can make sense for most parent-child
relationships.  Once the child rearing experience ceases to be the best
alternative - e.g., if unnecessary beatings occur, if talents are
neglected, if wildly irrational moralities are promulgated - and the child
or someone representing his or her interest can grasp this , obedience is
no longer owed and the child ought to run away to seek a better situation.
Since that is difficult for a child to know about, let alone do, some kind
of public awareness of parents' child rearing techniques would have to be
available to rem edy any abuses.  Thus if a child is persistently hidden
from public view, that may be prima facie grounds for closer public
scrutiny of the family situation.=20
     Here, too, something like a rational reconstruction takes places so
as to get at what is morally justified.  As a rational adult I can imagine
how I would have wanted to be brought up.  Indeed, we often figure this
out in our later years, sometimes w ith the aid of a therapist or friends,
sometimes entirely on our own. One's parents ought to have insisted on
eating nourishing food, doing one's home work, exercise, good manners,
education, etc.  They ought not to have forced one to follow father's trad
e, mother's tastes in clothes, etc.  And some matters would probably be
left quite optional - e.g., where to vacation, what novels one ought to
read, etc.=20
     What about such matters as religion and politics?  Here rearing would
have to involve handing down some values but with the under standing that
these are going to be available for personal choice later in the child's
life. It would not be rational to expect parents to avoid impart their
values to their offspring - indeed, it is part of their responsibility to
do this.  But it is sensible to insist, also, that parents make it evident
to a growing child that there will be challenges they will have to f ace
and that some of these may turn out to be successful.  This is merely to
prepare the child for some changes upon adolescence and avoid the extreme
shock of experiencing the changes out of the blue.=20
     Children, we may assume, would want to be successful adults and
would, therefore, want to have their parents rear them for such success.
Is the assumption rational?  Yes, since the interest children take in
living communicates this message to parent s.  Do well by me since I have
embarked on the project of living well - something you, my parents, ought
to have expected of me once I join the human race.=20
     It seems, then, that a kind of teleological ethics makes the best
sense of parental authority and children's obedience.  Given the rational
assumption that children would want to be brought up in certain ways, the
conditions for such rearing are auth orized for parents.  And they also
provide the limits to which parents may go.=20

Children's Rights
     There is a final topic to be considered.  Clearly, children are not
without rights - indeed, some positive rights (e.g., being fed).  First,
they have the rights that adults do, to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, albeit the exercise of th ese rights occurs via the judgment
and help of parents.  A child is a dependent being and thus lacks the full
sovereignty that is required for the independent exercise of one's basic
rights.  Yet, even as young human beings, children do possess the rights
of human beings via the direction of their parents.  They may not be
killed, assaulted, stolen from, etc.  Yet what they do with their lives,
what actions they take, and how they dispose of their property or seek
their happiness is largely under parental supervision.  That supervision,
in turn, must conform to the provisions implicit in our earlier discussion
about parental obligations.=20
     As a young human being, some measure of autonomy is deserved by every
normal child.  Children are not zoo animals, to be barred from exploring
the neighborhood, to make contact with other people.  Furthermore, because
children have been invited into the parents' lives, and since they are
children (indeed, initially totally dependent infants), parents have
committed themselves to provide for their children. May these be enforced
by the government?  Yes.  Here is the reason why.  When people have child
ren, they enter into a compact with them - or, rather, with the adults the
children will be.  This may be difficult to appreciate because it is a
unique relationship, one that is only possible with human children.  Since
parents have children as their off spring and not adults, and since
children are for the larger portion of their lives dependents - i.e.,
their parents can only be understood as making a promise or taking a kind
of oath to supply for them something they need to grow up.  And thus to
such s upport they are entitled to from their parents.  Let me spell this
out a bit.=20
     Children are young human beings, normally on their way to adult hood
at which time they will become moral agents in need of a normal upbringing
so as to have the capacity to do well in their lives, to be able to make
good choices.  This is something that parents-to-be would themselves be
expected to know.  So when they undertake to become parents, they may be
expected to know that they will be assuming the responsibility to bring
their children up so that they may become sound or able adults.  It is
arguable, in this connection, that failure to fulfill the implicit promise
of rearing one's children would expose parents to tort law.  They could be
sued for parental malpractice, negligence, abuse, etc.=20
     Children, in turn, may be taken to have the (positive) right to being
so treated that they will become sound or able adults.  This right they
have by virtue of the parents' choice to have them as the kind of beings
who will as adults have the right to be able to choose to live right.  If
they are not enabled for that purposes, they will not have that right,
they will fail to become persons.  That means that the parents' promise or
oath will not have been properly carried out.=20
     Now in a civilized society the parents can expect their government to
see to it that the contact they have entered into is being upheld - on
both sides.  Their authority should gain official sup port, and their
abuse of their authority should gain of ficial rebuke. In turn, there must
also be official backing in support of obedience to parents by children.=20
Run away kids should be returned home, provided no proof of child abuse is
available.  Children should not be protected by law in case they behave as
adults - e.g., in the purchase of goods and services, entering contracts,
etc.  Everyone ought to be on notice that children are dependents and may
not be counted upon to act otherwise.=20
    Parents, too, must be held accountable to provide for their children
the (contextually) necessary support that it would take to rear a child
toward enabling him or her to embark upon successful adulthood.  If there
is clear and present danger that chi ldren are not being provided for, law
officers would have the authority to investigate.  From the time a child
is born - perhaps even from an earlier time, depending on how the dispute
about when personhood begins is resolved - his or her citizenship woul d
be recorded and all the protection he or she is entitled to be would also
be provided.  Because of the special status of children as dependents -
moving from a state of total to gradually diminishing dependency - those
entrust with the protection of th eir rights would have certain legal
leeway toward parents not accorded them toward adults without children.=20
     We can easily see why this again would be a proper way to handle
parent-child relations.  Children are not ordinarily belongings - they are
not the property of parents but their offspring, namely, young human
beings taken in for the purposes of reari ng them toward maturity.  That
is a legally enforceable promise made by parents to children and whether
the promise is being conscientiously fulfilled is in part a public policy
question.=20