There can be no doubt at all that children in this country have certain rights. That being so, then others must inevitably have corresponding duties to see that children are able to exercise, or at the very least are not prevented from exercising, those rights. Where do these rights come from? My own view is that the Lord has given us these rights and duties and that they are set out clearly in the Bible. Others would argue that only a raving madman would claim to be basing his life upon the myth system of a Bronze Age Bedouin tribe! Perhaps we should adopt a more up-to-date and modern approach, believing that the rights which our children enjoy are those given to them by the law of the land.
What sort of rights do children in this country have? For one, they have a firm right to an education between the ages of five and sixteen. Who has the duty for ensuring that they receive this education? We do, as parents. This is all perfectly clear and straightforward. Do children have any other rights? Well, they have the right to the five outcomes of the Every Child matters document. This is underpinned by the 2004 Children Act. Who has the duty to see that our children have access to these five outcomes? There is no doubt at all about that. The local authority has the duty of seeing that children in their area are getting access to the outcomes of Every Child Matters. The only difference is that in one case the duty devolves upon us as parents and in the other upon the local authority. This is tricky. How did I know whether or not my own daughter was receiving her entitlement to a full time education, suitable to her age and aptitude? That's easy, I knew because I saw her every day and was able to judge her development. Could I have known this without seeing her? Probably not. What about the local authority? They too have a duty towards our children. Can they fulfil their duties towards our children without actually seeing them? Can they judge whether or not our children are healthy, safe, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and achieving economic wellbeing? It is unlikely that they will be able to establish that children are doing all those things without meeting them, and yet they have a duty in law to see that children in their area actually have access to all those outcomes listed in the Every Child Matters document.
If we accept that our children have a right to an education and that this right comes not from God but from Parliament, then the rights associated with the 2004 Children Act are no less important than the ones conferred by the Education Act 1996, which entitles them to an education. Both lots of rights come from the same source, the only difference being that parents have the duty to ensure that one right is secured and local authorities have the duty to see that the children get the other set of rights.
In short, we as parents are not the only people who have duties towards our children. Nor are the five outcomes of Every Child Matters the only rights which our children have that others have a duty to secure for them. It seems pretty clear that however much we as home educators wish to claim that we alone are responsible for our children and their welfare, this is not the case; either ethically or legally. Others do have a legitimate interest in our children.
Of course, we could of course say that we are only answerable to the Lord for our rights and duties, but this raises another, even greater, problem. Imagine the situation faced by the Canaanite Education Department around 2000 BC. There's Abraham with his son Isaac. They wish to know if the child is receiving a suitable education, but Abraham refuses to discuss the matter. He says that God is giving him the instructions about his child directly; he does not accept any human advice on the matter. Next thing they know, Abraham is up on Mount Moriah with the child tied up and laying on a pile of wood . Abraham says that he is going to cut the child's throat and offer the boy up to the Lord as a sacrifice. It's OK though, it's nobody else's business; the Lord has told him what to do! This would be a pretty unsatisfactory situation even during the Bronze Age. In the Twenty First Century it would be intolerable.
It seems to me an inescapable fact that society has a right to watch over our children to see that they do not come to harm. This is because parents are not always the best judges of what is good for their children. I think that in the case cited above, the Canaanites would have been pretty negligent in allowing Abraham to go ahead with what he evidently saw as a desirable otcome for his young son. It also seems to me that whether we think that our duties towards our children come from God or from Parliament, we must accept that others have a hand in ensuring that our children have access to those rights we which have a duty to secure for them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting arguments, but I must just point out that in the Ancient Near East, child sacrifice was very common. It was one of the 'detestible practices' of idol worship of the Canaanites referred to in the OT. The fact that God did NOT require such sacrifice was one of the distictives of Abrahamic monotheism at the time.
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'
Mrs Anon
I don't think The Children Act 2004 gives LAs a duty to ensure children have access to the five outcomes or a right for children to have them (these rights are listed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and my understanding is that they are natural rights that are listed rather than given, but I may be wrong there). The part where the Act lists the five outcomes states that the Children's commissioner, "is to be concerned in particular under this section with the views and interests of children so far as relating to the following aspects of their well-being". They must take reasonable steps to involve children in the discharge of this function, ensure that they are aware of his function and can communicate with him and report back to them. No mention of ensuring they achieve them.
ReplyDeleteLAs and other departments must make arrangements to ensure that, "their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children". So they must have regard to the five outcomes whilst carrying out their existing functions. No new duty to ensure they achieve them.
Local Safeguarding Children Boards have to "co-ordinate what is done by each person or body represented on the Board for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the area of the authority by which it is established". So they are responsible for co-ordination of other departments rather than children themselves and again, no duty to ensure...
And finally, does it seem reasonable that a government would risk making LAs responsible for children gaining the five outcomes? Wouldn't this leave them wide open to litigation by every child in the country who fails to achieve the five outcomes?
You say that Mrs Anon, but consider the case of Jephtah, one of the Judges! I cannot find any criticism of his actions anywhere in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth is a "Natural Right", Anonymous? This is a genuine question. A right might come from God or it might be devised by law. It cannot be "natural" like gravity or light. I am intrigued by this idea!
ReplyDeleteYet it was his decision, not one required of God.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Leviticus 20: 1-5 gives a strict warning against Child Sacrifice which was the practice among the Caananite followers of Molech. It was a capital offence. Most commentators explain that Jephthah was demonstrating his true allegiance to the wider ANE culture, rather than to God, by making this horrible vow.
The fact that Jephtha's vow is not specifically condemned OR commended in the Book of Judges is not relevant viewed in the context of Lev 20.
Mrs Anon
Maybe a better word than natural would be inherent. Human beings have inalienable, inherent rights with which they are born. These cannot be given by any external authority be it God or the government. Anything given by such authority can just as easily be taken away.
ReplyDeleteHowever, inalienable, inherent human rights cannot be dismissed so easily. A government may not wish to recognise your freedom of speech but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
The aspirations contained in the Every Child Matters diktat are merely that: aspirations. They are not rights in any way, shape or form.
That children have rights is in itself a contentious issue.
Also, when you speak of society, what exactly do you mean?
The verses that you cite are not a prohibition at all on child sacrifice as such. Rather, they are a specifiic order not to sacrifice one's seed to Moloch. There is nothing contained there which would prevent one from sacrificing a child to the God of Israel. This was an attack on the religion of Canaan, not a demand to avoid all such practices.
ReplyDeleteAs regards Jephtah, he only made his vow after, "the spirit of the Lord" came upon him. (Judges 11:29) He was then victorious against the Ammonites, "The Lord gave them into his hand". The impression is that the Lord was content to go along with this bargain.
Both King Manassah and King Ahaz of Israel sacrificed their children in the style of the Canaanites and there it was condemned.( Kings 16:3, 21:6.) The condemnation of the writer seems more because these were actions dedicated to Baal, rather than becuase they were killing their sons.
"What on earth is a "Natural Right", Anonymous? This is a genuine question. A right might come from God or it might be devised by law. It cannot be "natural" like gravity or light. I am intrigued by this idea!"
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this I wondered if I had made up the idea myself but no, others had already had the idea!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
"Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural rights and legal rights.
Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.
In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative."
"Human beings have inalienable, inherent rights with which they are born." This is indeed a fascinating idea. I am aware that humans are born with various physical attributes such as hair colour and so on. How on earth can they be born with "rights"? Either these rights have been given by God or they have been invented by humanity. Are you saying that justice and compassion are actually built into the fabric of the Universe like the natural forces of gravity and electro-maganetism? If this were so then it would be the greatest possible proof for the existence of a Creator-God. I cannot imagine otherwise how such abstract qualities could have benn made at the same instant as the material Universe.
ReplyDeleteUniversal rights? This is Alice in Wonderland? There can only be two possibilities. Either rights are an invention of humans or they are the gift of Heaven. I believe the latter but am quite willing to act as though the former were true. I cannot for the life of me see how "rights" could exists independely of humans though. Is it being suggested that they existed before humans, like the other laws of nature and that we gradually became aware of them?
ReplyDelete"That children have rights is in itself a contentious issue."
ReplyDeleteIndeed it is not. A child acquiresd a right when the law gives it to her. You might argue that she should not have the right, but you can hardly deny the existance of such things.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I cannot imagine otherwise how such abstract qualities could have benn made at the same instant as the material Universe."
I don't think they mean 'natural' in that way. Maybe you should have a look at the Wikipedia link and read about the philosophical underpinnings of the idea. It seems that the idea of 'natural' rights have been linked to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"Critics of the concept of natural rights argue that the only rights that exist are legal rights, while proponents of the concept of natural rights say that documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights demonstrate the usefulness of recognizing natural rights."
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Either rights are an invention of humans or they are the gift of Heaven. I believe the latter but am quite willing to act as though the former were true."
The idea of natural rights seems to pre-date christianity though obviously not God (if he exists):
"While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Islamic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today."
It seems that some believe that the rights you believe have been legally given to people by the UDHR are actually just a list of natural rights.
"Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law.
"The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr3.html
It is no coincidence that the newly independent America used this God-given criteria for unalienable rights.
In England, then as now, the Rule of the Monarch or the Rule of Parliament dictates that a man has no inherent rights; a man's 'rights' can be given or taken away at the whim of another man. If God has bestowed these rights, no man can take them away.
Christianity has nothing to do with the case, Anonymous. I can understand God being concerned with justice and setting out a code of rules that we must live by in order to promote justice. I can also understand that men and women might put together a code of laws themselves according to what seemed right to them and that this could happen without the assistance of the Lord. What I am trying to see now is how the inanimate and insensate material of the physical universe could have devised the ideas of justice and rights and then passed them on to humans. The very idea of "rights" comes from a mind, whether that of God or that of a man or woman. A stone, star or cloud of interplanetary gas cannot have come up with the idea of justice and even if it had would have had great difficulty telling us about it! I can't quite see this idea as being more rational than belief in God. Actually, it sounds far more far fetched.
ReplyDeleteIf I do not believe in God nor that the State may confer my human rights upon me from where do these rights emmanate?
ReplyDeleteAre justice and compassion human rights? In what way do you consider that human rights - such as freedom of speech - are abstract qualities?
You have not defined what you mean by society nor given your views on the contentious issue of whether or not children's rights actually exist.
I said above;
ReplyDelete'"That children have rights is in itself a contentious issue."
Indeed it is not. A child acquiresd a right when the law gives it to her. You might argue that she should not have the right, but you can hardly deny the existance of such things.'
By society, I mean simply the other people with whom and among whom one lives. If you do not believe in God, nor that the State may confer rights upon you, then you are a free spirit, unbound by anything except your own feelings. As Hobbes described such people, you are; "Constrained only by your ferocity, daring and imagination"!
"A child acquiresd a right when the law gives it to her. You might argue that she should not have the right, but you can hardly deny the existance of such things."
ReplyDeleteI have dealt with this issue of 'Children's Rights' several times, Simon, and you refuse to address it - preferring to divert us with talk of 'ex home-educator' or 'split infinitives'.
All human beings are born with the same unalienable rights; the right of SELF OWNERSHIP and unalienable PROPERTY RIGHTS. Because a child is too young for self-determination or self-ownership, he must be protected by his parents.
Simon, you continually misuse the term 'rights'. When you refer to rights, you are actually talking about 'positive right':
"Positive Rights
Since the concept of rights limits the actions of the government, the only way to circumvent them is by adding new rights that are allegedly superior to the others. The concept of Positive Rights was developed. These new rights differ from the old rights. Instead of involving freedom from interference from others, these new rights demand goods and services.
The "positive" in positive rights refers to the fact that to satisfy these rights, other people must provide them. They require action from others, instead of inaction. A "right" to health care is such a right. In order to fulfill it, a doctor must be enslaved. The doctor may be paid of course, but then others are required to pay the bill.
Positive rights are not compatible with real rights, or "negative rights". The positive rights requires actions on the part of others. Negative rights requires that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want. The two are incompatible. Positive rights are accepted at the expense of negative rights. They cannot coexists, since they are polar opposites. "
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_PositiveRights.html
"All human beings are born with the same unalienable rights; the right of SELF OWNERSHIP and unalienable PROPERTY RIGHTS."
ReplyDeleteGod bless my soul, what an extraordinary assertion! What are these 'property rights' and where do they come from? Why are these 'rights' inalienable and not merely provisional and open to negotiation? Nothing comes from nothing. These rights, if they exist, cannot have created themselves; they must have been devised somehow. Is it asking too much to know by whom they were invented and how they have been acquired by the new born baby? This is quite interesting, but I confess myself a little puzzled so far.
" have dealt with this issue of 'Children's Rights' several times, Simon, and you refuse to address it "
ReplyDeleteIt is not that I refuse to discuss this, it is simply that people keep making bare assertions about the matter, which means that it is not possible to discuss the idea rationally. You must begin by explaining here where you think these rights have come from and showing that they predate the development of human life on earth, and after that you must at least sketch out some theory for how we became aware of them. Once this has been done, I will be happy to discuss the whole thing.
"Who has the duty to see that our children have access to these five outcomes? There is no doubt at all about that. The local authority has the duty of seeing that children in their area are getting access to the outcomes of Every Child Matters."
ReplyDeleteReturning to who had the duty to see that children have access to the five outcomes. Where specifically do you think LAs are given the duty to ensure all children have access to them as opposed to their usual position of 'parent of last resort', i.e. when it comes to their notice during the course of their already existing duties that a parent has failed? Where does it say that they have to go out specifically to check that children has access to them?
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"You must begin by explaining here where you think these rights have come from and showing that they predate the development of human life on earth, and after that you must at least sketch out some theory for how we became aware of them. "
Nobody is making this claim. The idea of natural rights obviously flow from human minds, it's a philosophical viewpoint that humans should automatically have certain rights that do not depend on being allowed those rights by the current ruling power.
"The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through "reason" alone. The Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights""
"Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) included a discussion of natural rights in his moral and political philosophy. Hobbes' conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a "state of nature". Thus he argued that the essential natural (human) right was "to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." (Leviathan. 1,XIV)
According to Hobbes, to deny this right would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to expect that carnivores might reject meat or fish stop swimming. Hobbes sharply distinguished this natural "liberty", from natural "laws" (obligations), described generally as "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving his life; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may best be preserved." (ibid.)
In his natural state, according to Hobbes, man's life consisted entirely of liberties and not at all of laws - "It followeth, that in such a condition, every man has the right to every thing; even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man... of living out the time, which Nature ordinarily allow men to live." (ibid.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#Natural_rights_theories
"Thomas Paine (1731–1809) further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges:"
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#Natural_rights_theories
So you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that these rights of which you talk are those which men and women have invented? If that is so, then obviously it cannot be the case that;
ReplyDelete"All human beings are born with the same unalienable rights; the right of SELF OWNERSHIP and unalienable PROPERTY RIGHTS."
Clearly, if some human beings have come up with one set of rights, then another bunch of people could come along later with another lot of rules to cover the matter. Which would of course mean that there is no yardstick by which we may judge these rights and no way of deciding what actually constitutes one of these natural rights at all. After all, when slavery was in force, then a new born baby would not have had, " the right of SELF OWNERSHIP". She would have belonged to her owner. Are you saying that we should take a vote and see what most people agree with and then take that as a "natural right"? Again, this is dangerous. Suppose that everybody agrees that negroes or Jews should not have the same rights as the rest of us? Would that be OK if that was what most people wanted?
Hobbes may well say, " to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.".
This does not make it true; it is really no more than bare assertion. others have had different points of view on the subject.
" Where specifically do you think LAs are given the duty to ensure all children have access to them as opposed to their usual position of 'parent of last resort',"
ReplyDeleteUnder the provisions of the Children Act 2004, these bodies have a duty to promote the Ecery Child Matters document;
local authorities, including district councils6;
the police;
the probation service;
NHS bodies(Strategic Health Authorities, Designated Special Health Authorities, Primary Care
Trusts, NHS trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts);
Organisations (currently the Connexions Service) providing services under section 114 of the
Learning and Skills Act 20007;
Youth offending teams;
Governors/ Directors of Prisons and Young Offender Institutions;
Directors of Secure Training Centres;
The British Transport Police.
They are not just to do this with vulnerable children with whom they come into contact, but with every child of whom they are aware. It is supposed to permeate their entire work. They must make sure that all the children are being examined in light of;
Physical and mental health and emotional well-being;
Protection from harm and neglect ;
Education, training and recreation;
Making a positive contribution to society; and
Social and economic well-being.
As I say, they must promote this. That is to say they have a positive duty to put across the tenets of ECM, not simply remember them. Every child must eventually be given access to the five outcomes.
I'm not at all sure why I should be impressed with what some men three hundred years ago said was a logical way to view the human condition. Hobbes may well have said one thing and it is quite possible that Kant agreed with him. This does not make these people right. I am sure that if I quoted Jesus or Moses and then said that because they had said such and such it must be true, then people would soon set me straight! Simply saying, "The duty of man is to do such and such a thing" means nothing at all. Some men have claimed that the whole duty of men is to obey God. Others have said that it is to use their reason. Another popular one is that we should help each other. These are no more than opinions. The fact that the people who expressed these opinions lived a few centuries or millenia ago does not make their opinions right!
ReplyDeleteSimon wrote,
ReplyDelete"They must make sure that all the children are being examined in light of;"
Where on earth does it say this in the Children Act 2004? It states:
"(2) Each person and body to whom this section applies must make arrangements for ensuring that—
(a) their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children"
They must have regard to the 5 outcomes whilst carrying out existing functions. they are not told to examine every child in their area to ensure they have access to them, they are not given additional functions, they are just told to bear the 5 outcomes in mind whilst they do what they already do.
"I'm not at all sure why I should be impressed with what some men three hundred years ago said was a logical way to view the human condition."
ReplyDeleteThat wasn't my intention. You questioned the idea of natural rights (you said, "What on earth is a "Natural Right", Anonymous? ") I was merely pointing you in the right direction to find out more. The rights you claim have been given to us (or a privilege when they are 'given' in Paine's view) have evolved from these and other philosophies, they have not just appeared out of a vacuum. The Children Act 2004 mentions the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Here is a quote from the UNICEF web site:
" They [human rights] are inherent to the human person, inalienable and universal."
http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_framework.html
Does this language sound similar? Look at the first link and quote I gave you from Wikipedia (also the source of the quotes written by some men 300 years ago),
"In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative."
You may want to dismiss something written by some men 300 years ago but the rights you are quoting an apparently supporting are underpinned by their theories and those that followed.
Another relevant quote from UNICEF site,
ReplyDelete"Convention on the Rights of the Child
Inherent, inalienable and universal
Human rights are inherent; we are simply born with them and they belong to each of us as a result of our common humanity. Human rights are not owned by select people or given as a gift. They are inalienable; individuals cannot give them up and they cannot be taken away — even if governments do not recognize or protect them. They are universal; they are held by all people, everywhere – regardless of age, sex, race, religion, nationality, income level or any other status or condition in life. Human rights belong to each and every one of us equally."
http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30196.html
"They must make sure that all the children are being examined in light of;"
ReplyDeleteWhere on earth does it say this in the Children Act 2004? "
It is to be found in the Statutory Guidance published in 2007.
"Clearly, if some human beings have come up with one set of rights, then another bunch of people could come along later with another lot of rules to cover the matter. Which would of course mean that there is no yardstick by which we may judge these rights and no way of deciding what actually constitutes one of these natural rights at all."
ReplyDeleteJohn Locke put the case this way: 'every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself.' This natural right of self ownership is not subjective; it IS as natural and inherent to man as breathing. Every man that ever lived has felt this right instinctively. I assume, Simon, even you do not question any man's right, not to be violated or enslaved? Even when these rights are violated, the rights still exist.
Your confusion stems from the fact that you do not understand what 'rights' really are, and you do not understand the difference between these objective 'negative rights' and 'positive rights'.
Positive rights are subjective and changeable and are not actually 'rights' at all. Every time you discuss rights, you are talking about these subjective 'positive rights'.
"Human rights are inherent; we are simply born with them and they belong to each of us as a result of our common humanity."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, this is a bare assertion without any attempt to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. It is not; we are not born with human rights. There are, as I said above, two possible ways that we might acquire any "rights". One is if God has handed them down to us and other is if men and women get together and invent the ideas. If that happens, then the ideas that they come up with might be wrong headed and need to be revised at a later date. To see that this is true, one only needs to look at the Declaration of Independence, quoted above;
" The Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
All very fine until you recollect that there was no prohibition on slavery contained there. That idea was dreamed up years later. We have no reason to suppose that our current system of laws and philosophy is now perfect and that we will ourselves not need to revise our ideas of what is right and wrong at a later date.
"John Locke put the case this way: 'every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself.' This natural right of self ownership is not subjective; it IS as natural and inherent to man as breathing. Every man that ever lived has felt this right instinctively."
ReplyDeleteThis is of course complete nonsense. Slavery was accepted in all societies for the whole of human history up until a few centuries ago. The Bible contains nothing against it and although Locke claimes that, " Every man that ever lived has felt this right instinctively", there was no sort of opposition to the institution of slavery until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Apparently up until this time, nobody did "feel this right instinctively".
"I assume, Simon, even you do not question any man's right, not to be violated or enslaved? "
ReplyDeleteI like this little dig! As though any man who would be in favour of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009 might very well be in favour of keeping slaves. Nice one, AM!
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"I'm not at all sure why I should be impressed with what some men three hundred years ago said was a logical way to view the human condition. Hobbes may well have said one thing and it is quite possible that Kant agreed with him. This does not make these people right. I am sure that if I quoted Jesus or Moses and then said that because they had said such and such it must be true, then people would soon set me straight! Simply saying, "The duty of man is to do such and such a thing" means nothing at all. Some men have claimed that the whole duty of men is to obey God. Others have said that it is to use their reason. Another popular one is that we should help each other. These are no more than opinions. The fact that the people who expressed these opinions lived a few centuries or millenia ago does not make their opinions right!"
Simon, this argument against the notion of 'Natural Rights' has destroyed your own argument FOR 'Children's Rights'. It has destroyed your arguments supporting the CSF Bill. It has destroyed all your arguments concerning what constitutes a suitable education.
Time for you to self destruct.
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete""They must make sure that all the children are being examined in light of;"
Where on earth does it say this in the Children Act 2004? "
It is to be found in the Statutory Guidance published in 2007."
A very long document which doesn't contain the word 'examined'. Can you be a little more specific? Am I even looking at the document you mean, http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/DFES-0036-2007.pdf
Statutory Guidance cannot change primary legislation and primary legislation makes it clear that the relevant bodies must make arrangements for ensuring that their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. They are not given the duty to ensure all children have access or that all children are examined.
The guidance I've linked above states (my emphasis):
"2.3. The section 11 duty means that these key people and bodies must make arrangements to ensure two things. Firstly, that their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and secondly, that the services they contract out to others are provided having regard to that need.
2.4. The duty does not give agencies any new functions, nor does it over-ride their existing functions. It, however, requires them to carry out their existing functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children."
"This is of course complete nonsense. Slavery was accepted in all societies for the whole of human history up until a few centuries ago. The Bible contains nothing against it and although Locke claimes that, " Every man that ever lived has felt this right instinctively", there was no sort of opposition to the institution of slavery until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Apparently up until this time, nobody did "feel this right instinctively"."
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that every slave felt this instinctively. Every man and woman violated felt it instinctively. Every man and woman whose property was stolen felt it instinctively.
Just because the rights were violated does not mean the rights do not exist. These rights are the uniting common thread of all human beings for all human history.
"Once again, this is a bare assertion without any attempt to demonstrate that this is in fact the case. It is not; we are not born with human rights. "
ReplyDeleteSo now you are arguing against UNICEF (the source of the quote) and the theories that underpin the the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which in turn underpins (and is referred to in)the Children Act 2004. Do you disagree with the provisions of Children Act 2004 or just with the theories that brought it about?
"I like this little dig! As though any man who would be in favour of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill 2009 might very well be in favour of keeping slaves. Nice one, AM!"
ReplyDeleteNo, you misunderstand. I simply meant that you tend to argue as a contrarian.
I'm sure you are not in favour of keeping slaves. You are, however,in favour of us ALL BEING slaves.
But lets stick to 'rights' for now.
" can assure you that every slave felt this instinctively"
ReplyDeleteEvery person in prison feels instinctively that he does not wish to be there. This does not tell us that he really should not be there. You are talking about a purely subjective feeling. The fact is that all the Greek philosphers, romans, everybody in the Bible, Muslims, Jews, practically every society felt that slavery was OK.
Simon said:
ReplyDelete"I'm not at all sure why I should be impressed with what some men three hundred years ago said was a logical way to view the human condition. Hobbes may well have said one thing and it is quite possible that Kant agreed with him. This does not make these people right. I am sure that if I quoted Jesus or Moses and then said that because they had said such and such it must be true, then people would soon set me straight! Simply saying, "The duty of man is to do such and such a thing" means nothing at all. Some men have claimed that the whole duty of men is to obey God. Others have said that it is to use their reason. Another popular one is that we should help each other. These are no more than opinions. The fact that the people who expressed these opinions lived a few centuries or millenia ago does not make their opinions right!"
Simon, this argument against the notion of 'Natural Rights' has destroyed your own argument FOR 'Children's Rights'. It has destroyed your arguments supporting the CSF Bill. It has destroyed all your arguments concerning what constitutes a suitable education.
Well, not really. I am basing my belief upon children's rights on what they have been assured of by law in this country. I explained clearly at the beginning that I was not really a believer in "Natural Rights". This has nothing at all to do with what anybody ever thought in the past. A right which is not guaranteed in law is no sort of a right at all. Indeed, it would be nonsense to talk about an objective "children's right". I may be a bit slow today, but how exactly has this destroyed my argument?
"A right which is not guaranteed in law is no sort of a right at all. Indeed, it would be nonsense to talk about an objective "children's right"."
ReplyDeleteBut if a law if required before something can be a 'right', how can it be a right? A right is something that is yours and cannot be taken away, it is yours by right in the moral sense. Laws can be changed and a 'right' given by a law can just as easily be taken away by a law. Isn't Paine right when he calls these privileges rather than rights?
" Do you disagree with the provisions of Children Act 2004 or just with the theories that brought it about?"
ReplyDeleteThe theories which brought it about have no more to do with the case than the flowers that bloom in the Spring. The only sort of rights which can be debated are those which have been established by law. This is of course because when a right is established in this way, then somebody else acquires a duty at the same time. To talk of "natural rights" is a nonsense, not least because no two people are likely to agree what is meant by the expression. When I talk of children's rights, I am limiting myself to discussing the rights laid down by law in this country. Unless we do this, then the way would be open for me to start claiming that God has given children the rights and then the argument is effectively ended!
Where in the Children Act 2004 does it give children any rights? It merely states that authorities should consider the safety and welfare of children whilst carrying out their existing duties. The rights it refers to are the rights in the UNICEF convention and these are natural rights. When you consider your legal rights you are by default considering natural rights (according to UNICEF).
ReplyDeleteI have to do some work now, but before I go I shall try and set things out a little more clearly. In the past, we have had many diferrent ideas about right and wrong. We have thought that hitting children is a good way to teach them, we have believed that it is good to love our neighbours, to keep slaves, to respect the elderly, that homosexuality is an abomination. Our ideas about these things change over time. We abandon some ideas and adopt others. Our legal system takes what we see as the best of the current ideas on morality and incorporates them into laws.
ReplyDeleteSo it is that we now have laws that stop children at school being hit, that allow homosexuality to flourish and forbid slavery. Unless anybody really believes that we have now reached the ultimate stage of human civilisation, then these ideas will change again over time and what we now accept and incorporate into law, we shall forbid in time and vice versa.
There are no absolutes in this. Society changes its view of various activities constantly. The only way that we can be sure if something is actually a "right" is to look at the laws of the land. Because our ideas on right and wrong are changing all the time, it is impossible to pick on some idea or other and claim that it is a natural law, or natural right. It is nothing of the sort. It is a fallible, human scheme dreamed up by ordinary men and women. It is quite as likely to be wrong as it is to be right! All talk of inviolable rights or inalienable rights if sheer folly. In a hundred years or so, our view of the matter will have changed completely, just as our ideas today are quite different about these things than was the case in 1800 or so.
"Where in the Children Act 2004 does it give children any rights?"
ReplyDeleteThe right is created by the duty, just as a child's right to education is created by the duty of their parents to cause them to receive it. Duties are the other side of rights. Rights presuppose duties and vice versa. In the case of the Children Act 2004, local authorities acquire a duty by the act to establish co-operative partnership working arrangements to improve the wellbeing of children. This has the legal effect of creating a right of children to those arrangements to improve their wellbeing. The wellbeing is itself measured by the extent to which those children have access to the five outcomes of the Every Child Matters document.
Local authorities are not give duties to ensure children receive rights in the Children Act 2004, they just told to consider the pre-existing rights whilst carrying out their normal duties. The rights were given to children by the UNICEF Convention as mentioned in the Children Act 2004.
ReplyDelete"So it is that we now have laws that stop children at school being hit, that allow homosexuality to flourish and forbid slavery."
ReplyDeleteThese are not rights, they are laws or 'legal rights'. Legal rights and natural rights are not the same thing. Legal rights are dependent upon the law, as in the examples you gave. Natural Rights are not dependent on any law, any culture.
"There are no absolutes in this. Society changes its view of various activities constantly."
That is the whole point. Natural Rights ARE absolute.
"The only way that we can be sure if something is actually a "right" is to look at the laws of the land. "
I will say this once more. The law of the land is not a reflection of natural rights, only a reflection of 'legal rights'.
"It is a fallible, human scheme dreamed up by ordinary men and women. It is quite as likely to be wrong as it is to be right!"
Yes, a legal right is fallible, like the CSF Bill, Simon. Our natural rights are infallible.
"All talk of inviolable rights or inalienable rights if sheer folly."
On the contrary. Natural Rights are the only rights worth talking about and fighting for. Many men and women have died protecting or fighting for their natural rights. Legal Rights or Positive Rights are generally in conflict with Natural Rights, since LRs and PRs are enforced by the state, usually as a means to empower ITSELF.
"In a hundred years or so, our view of the matter will have changed completely, just as our ideas today are quite different about these things than was the case in 1800 or so."
Not true. Ideas of Natural Rights and Freedom never becomes outdated, this is why we are able to quote John Locke and Thomas Paine and it is as relevant today as when it was written.
"But if a law if required before something can be a 'right', how can it be a right? A right is something that is yours and cannot be taken away, it is yours by right in the moral sense. Laws can be changed and a 'right' given by a law can just as easily be taken away by a law. Isn't Paine right when he calls these privileges rather than rights?"
ReplyDelete100% correct, Anonymous.
Isn't the key issue here the starting point for making decisions about rights and freedoms? If each individual is assumed to have, by virtue of their existence, the same inherent value as any other human being, then each human being starts off, theoretically at least, with the same liberty to behave as they wish.
ReplyDeleteOf course the exercise of those liberties clashes from time to time, so communities end up having to constrain some individual liberties in order for us all to co-exist. The community decides on those constraints by a process of negotiation and agreement (customs and laws).
This is very different from a situation where individual 'rights' are decided by some elected (or unelected) small group that also takes on the task of allegedly defending those rights.
In reality, of course, our individual liberty tends to be very constrained in a densely populated geographical area with highly developed social structures, but that doesn't negate the underlying principle of complete individual liberty constrained only where needful.
The playerѕ can help theѕe gamеs from numbeг of the tеleρhοne number of online games and the gamіng websites were leѕs.
ReplyDeleteFеel free to surf tο my web page .
.. game