My daughter drew my attention to Ed Balls' piece in the Guardian yesterday about home education. There is a bit of a story behind this. For some incomprehensible reason, she joined the Labour party earlier this year and is now active in the campaign to secure the leadership of the party for Ed Balls. This has entailed going to the campaign headquarters and ringing up members to urge them to support Ed Balls for leader. The other day she told me that she had been telephoning dead people, which made me wonder for a moment if she had been contacting Keir hardy and Ramsay McDonald in order to solicit their support. It turned out simply that the membership list was a little out of date and some of those on it had died.
Now my daughter is very touchy about home education and very quick to jump in if she feels that somebody is attacking the idea or saying silly things about it. Yet after reading Ed Balls' article, she posted a comment in support of his views at once. I also read the piece and could not for the life of me see anything objectionable about it. He says that most home educators are doing a good job and that it would be sensible to check that this is the case with all children being educated at home. Neither I nor my daughter can see anything at all wrong in this idea. My only criticism of what he says is that he falls into the popular error of talking about parents' 'rights' to home educate. This is of course nonsense. It is, as I have pointed out before on more than one occasion, children who have a right to education. Parents have not a right but a duty to see that their children gain access to this right.
Among other things, ed Balls said;
'The review I commissioned and the legislation I brought forward for a formal registration scheme – with rights to see children alone for local authority officers in rare situations when they can obtain no co-operation from parents – provoked vigorous criticism from some, who claimed I was infringing parental rights, criticism which I believe was wholly disproportionate to what we actually proposed.'
I think one would be hard pressed to find anybody apart from home educating parents who would be inclined to disagree with this. One hears a good deal of the views of home educating parents, many of whom are vociferous, but it is curious that one does not see the children and young people themselves on the main lists such as EO and HE-UK. My daughter tried to join both last year, but was refused permission. I found this curious and so did she, that an articulate home educated young person should be denied a voice in this way. Why do no young people and children ever post on the lists? Have they no opinions? At any rate, my daughter is very eager to talk about this and so she will be answering any comments here herself today. This will be a glorious bonus for readers, as I shall also be answering comments in my usual amiable fashion. I can imagine the hearts of some home educators sinking at this prospect; imagine another S. Webb giving views about home education! It does not bear thinking about. They are already all too familiar with S. Webb the father. Now they are to have S. Webb the daughter inflicted upon them. Whoever will it be next? S. Webb the mother? S. Webb the aunty? Perhaps even S. Webb the grandfather's cousin twice removed? Fortunately, I can assure readers that this is strictly a one-off event and that my daughter will only be on here for one day, although she has already weighed in to the debate on the Guardian about ed Balls' article. Nervous readers may rest easy; there are no more S. Webbs lurking around the place ready to rave on about home education. Her contributions are likely to be later on, because during the day she will be at Ed Balls' campaign headquarters, beavering away to secure this frightful man the leadership of the Labour party. Why she can't just vote Tory like all other sensible and well balanced people is a complete mystery to me.
The complete text of Ed Balls article may be found here. Santaevita is my daughter;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/03/michael-gove-ed-balls-home-education
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the article and am so sick of Mr Balls that I don't really want to. However, I did want to just pop in here and say well done to you, Simone, for your exam success last year and to wish you well at college and university, if that's what you choose to do next.
Have a good day!
Mrs Anon
Hello! Thank you so much, Mrs Anon :) Nice to talk to you.
ReplyDeleteSimone
I presume neither of you (S & S) think children should have the right to make choices about their own education? I would go further and suggest that you want to remove the right some children have to make choices about their education.
ReplyDeleteSimone, can you ask Ed why he says this?
ReplyDeleteHowever, the fact that Khyra was being home educated throughout her last critical year, when her body mass declined to its final unsustainable state, was also a major factor.
Is this an intentional lie or does he really know so little about the case? Maybe 5 months seemed too short a time to justify blaming home education?
"I presume neither of you (S & S) think children should have the right to make choices about their own education? "
ReplyDeleteYou presume too much my friend. On all the Internet lists I hear a great deal from parents talking about their 'rights' and telling us all what their children want. Conspicuous by their absence are the children and young people themselves. As I remarked above, when an articulate fifteen year old tried to join the lists , she was refused entry. When local authority officers visit homes, they often only hear the parents side of things and sometimes are denied any chance at all of speaking to the child in order to establish her own feelings about the parent's course of action. In many cases, they are refused access to the home at all and have therfore no way at all of knowing what the child's views on this are. It is the child who has the right, the right to an education. Talking about parents' 'rights' as even ed Balls did in the Guardian, is a nonsense. When my child was small i had no rights at all about her education, whether at school or home. Instead, I had a duty, a duty to see that she recieved an education.
"You presume too much my friend."
ReplyDeleteI'm not presuming, I know you want to remove my child's right to choose what they learn and when they learn it. You have made the clear repeatedly.
"On all the Internet lists I hear a great deal from parents talking about their 'rights' and telling us all what their children want. Conspicuous by their absence are the children and young people themselves."
My children have no interest at all in taking part in conversations about home education. Do you think I should make them take part?
"When local authority officers visit homes, they often only hear the parents side of things and sometimes are denied any chance at all of speaking to the child in order to establish her own feelings about the parent's course of action."
So are children not allowed to decide they do not want to speak to the LA? As it happens, mine did but again you seem to want to force this on children whether they want it or not.
"In many cases, they are refused access to the home at all and have therfore no way at all of knowing what the child's views on this are."
Autonomous educators are likely to give their child a free choice in such issues, the same probably cannot be said for other home educated children or school children. Do children only have rights if what they want agrees with what you think they should want?
"It is the child who has the right, the right to an education."
And it's my duty to uphold that right. Government should be the parent of last resort and only become involved when the parent fails.
"Talking about parents' 'rights' as even ed Balls did in the Guardian, is a nonsense."
I like Imrans reply to the issue of a conflict between a parent's and child's various rights,
Indeed, I agree with Mr Balls here but contest the implication that the two rights are in opposition. The Children’s Act recognizes that except where children are at risk of or being subjected to significant harm, local authorities should work with families to support them in caring for their children. This commitment to working in partnership was missing from the proposed Bill.
"When my child was small i had no rights at all about her education, whether at school or home. Instead, I had a duty, a duty to see that she recieved an education."
You also have a duty to uphold her rights. I want my children to have the right to choose their education and also who they meet and talk to (unless they are at risk of significant harm). They currently have this right but you seem to want to remove it.
"I'm not presuming,"
ReplyDeleteYou must forgive my own presumption! when somebody begins by saying, 'I presume', then I rather assume that she is actually presuming something. I apologise for the misunderstanding.
"My children have no interest at all in taking part in conversations about home education. Do you think I should make them take part?"
By no means. it simply strikes me as a little odd that the Internet is buzzing with parents but very few home educated children and young people seem to be telling anybody what they themselves want.
"Do children only have rights if what they want agrees with what you think they should want?"
No, when a right is guaranteed by law then it is equally applicable to all children, regardless of my feelings about it. I find it deplorable that eleven year old girls are being prescribed contraceptives and abortifacients at schools and clinics without the knowledge of their parents. However, such things are arguably their legal right and I must respect this. All that we can do is to try and change the law in order to change the rights. I am, as you have perhaps guessed, a legal positivist.
"You also have a duty to uphold her rights. I want my children to have the right to choose their education and also who they meet and talk to"
You have lost me now. Where does your children's right to choose their own education come from? I have not heard about this. Similarly, the right to choose who they meet and talk to. I am probably out of touch, I do not keep track of every new law and am not disputing that this is the case; I genuinely wish to know about this development. Or are you saying that they should have this right and that you are campaiging for them to be granted it?
"I'm not presuming,"
ReplyDeleteYou must forgive my own presumption! when somebody begins by saying, 'I presume', then I rather assume that she is actually presuming something. I apologise for the misunderstanding."
It was a rhetorical question.
"By no means. it simply strikes me as a little odd that the Internet is buzzing with parents but very few home educated children and young people seem to be telling anybody what they themselves want."
Isn't there a group for home educated children? I think someone called Chloe is involved? My children have told me what they want. Obviously with your track record you will not believe me when I say this, but then you also tend not to believe what children say either, preferring to believe that what they say is influenced by their parents. We can't win really, can we?
"Where does your children's right to choose their own education come from? I have not heard about this."
Can we only have rights only if they have been given to us by our government? I've always thought of human rights as something everyone automatically has 'merely by reason of being human', as it phrases it in Wikipedia. Only having the rights given to us by government seems a very narrow view of human rights.
"Or are you saying that they should have this right and that you are campaiging for them to be granted it?"
My children currently have the freedom and right (admittedly because I allow it) to choose what, when and how they learn. I think of this as their right because they are humans and adult humans already have this right.
The UN talks of protecting (not giving) fundamental human rights by the rule of law.
ReplyDelete" I think of this as their right because they are humans and adult humans already have this right."
ReplyDeleteWell adult humans also have the right to drive motor vehicles, work on oil rigs and fire shotguns. Are you saying that you want all adult rights such as these conferred upon your children or only those which you choose?
"Can we only have rights only if they have been given to us by our government? I've always thought of human rights as something everyone automatically has 'merely by reason of being human'"
I suppose that if you believe in God then that is a perfectly resonable point of view to hold. Otherwise, I wonder where you think these rights come from? Are they simply a natural property of the Universe, like gravity and magnetism? In short, if you don't believe that they have been devised by men and women, where do they come from?
"The UN talks of protecting (not giving) fundamental human rights by the rule of law."
ReplyDeleteThat's right. I am simply trying to find out where this right of a child to choose her education comes from.
Simone, you may be interested in reading this article. Although written about the US it is equally applicable here in the UK:
ReplyDeletehttp://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/
"Isn't there a group for home educated children? I think someone called Chloe is involved?"
ReplyDeleteYes, Chloe Watson. The only problem is that this was not a group set up by young people but by Rourke from Education Otherwise! It is really like a junior branch of education Otherwise. It was set up round about the time of the select committee hearing last year. Not much happens on it and few people now where to find it.
"I suppose that if you believe in God then that is a perfectly resonable point of view to hold."
ReplyDeleteCan only those who believe in God make claim to moral rights?
"That's right. I am simply trying to find out where this right of a child to choose her education comes from."
The UN mentions natural rights in various documents. Here is the Wikipedia description:
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 unalienable 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.
Do you think it's morally wrong for a child to have the right to choose the content and form of their education?
ReplyDelete"Can only those who believe in God make claim to moral rights?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not, provided they can explain where these moral rights originate. I know about rights which are bestowed by law, I am less sure about these moral rights. Tell me, if they were not created by men and women, presumably they have another source?
"Do you think it's morally wrong for a child to have the right to choose the content and form of their education? "
ReplyDeleteWhen we assert that somebody has a 'right' to something, it is important to be sure what we are saying. I don't know of any right that a child has in this country to choose the form and content of her education. I am trying to find out about this right; where it is set down, who defined it and so on. Once that has been established then we can talk about the morality of the thing and whether such a right should exist or if it should be changed. If you don't mind my saying so, it all seems a bit vague at the moment.
I feel that this monumentally tacky tweet by firebird 2110, well known to many UK home educators, deserves a wider circulation. It refers to the fact that my daughter supports Ed Balls in the Labour leadership campaign;
ReplyDelete' she says she loves balls? The little tart ;-)'
This is precisely the sort of lame, slightly off-colour double entendre which one would expect from a fourteen year old schoolboy or a really sleazy middle-aged man. That the home educating mother of a six year-old girl could make such a comment about a home educated sixteen year-old tells me all I could possibly wish to know about this singularly unsavoury individual.
"When we assert that somebody has a 'right' to something, it is important to be sure what we are saying. I don't know of any right that a child has in this country to choose the form and content of her education."
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that this right has been written down or agreed by anyone, I'm saying that currently my child is able to make these choices, they effectively have the right by default because nobody can currently stop them making these choices. Do you think it is morally wrong for my child to be able to make these choices?
Incidentally, would we prevent children making these choices anyway? If a school going child for instance, decided that they would only accept autonomous education and sat in any classrooms without listening or obeying the teachers instructions unless they wanted to learn what was on offer, what could anyone do?
"Incidentally, would we prevent children making these choices anyway?"
ReplyDeleteshould have read:
"Incidentally, could we prevent children making these choices anyway?"
"I'm not saying that this right has been written down or agreed by anyone, I'm saying that currently my child is able to make these choices, they effectively have the right by default because nobody can currently stop them making these choices. Do you think it is morally wrong for my child to be able to make these choices?"
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying that you currently allow your children to choose the type of education which they receive. Other parents may allow their children to eat nothing but sugar or to juggel with chainsaw. This does not really create any sort of a 'right' for these choices. As far as I can make out, you are really saying that although no such right actually exists, you would like to have this as a right or you think that such a right should exist in the future. Would you say that this sums up your position? As for whether it is morally wrong for your child to have these choices, I would not say so at all. You evidently allow them to choose something which is not forbidden by law and I can't see that morality enters into it. However, the rights in the case could change in the future.
Simone, can you ask Ed why he says this? ... Sure, let me just get hold of him; he's on my speed-dial. /sarcasm
ReplyDelete"As far as I can make out, you are really saying that although no such right actually exists, you would like to have this as a right or you think that such a right should exist in the future."
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm saying that unless there is a law that says that something cannot be done, we automatically by default have the 'right' to do it.
Great debating point there, casablancagirl.
ReplyDelete"Simone, can you ask Ed why he says this? ... Sure, let me just get hold of him; he's on my speed-dial. /sarcasm"
ReplyDeleteYou didn't really think I though you would/could ask him did you? It was more an indirect question so I'll write it more plainly as that was obviously not clear.
How can you respect and admire someone who is capable of writing such a poorly researched article about a case he clearly knows little about or has purposely lied about in order to make a point?
I don't know why you choose to debate human rights as you seem to have a limited intellectual capacity to actually understand them, as evidenced by the comment,
ReplyDelete"Well adult humans also have the right to drive motor vehicles, work on oil rigs and fire shotguns."
Adults may drive a car or fire a shotgun because they are given a license to do so - this can be revoked at any time and is, thus, not a right but a priviledge to be granted or taken away by the state. If driving was a right you would not need to reapply for your license on reaching seventy years of age.
The difference with human rights is that they are inherent in everyone because they are human. They cannot be taken away, therefore, by the state or by an enitity such as God. If there is no state or one does not believe in God, human rights still exist and belong to each and every one of us by essence of us being human.
Those who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights understood this, not just intellectually but I would think viscerally as well (it's something you just know):
'[The] recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'.
Why can't you?
"You evidently allow them to choose something which is not forbidden by law and I can't see that morality enters into it."
ReplyDeleteMorality enters into it because I think coercive education is morally wrong. I also think coercive education is inefficient for my children in my experience. As the law requires education to be efficient, it is my duty to provide autonomous education for my children.
"The complete text of Ed Balls article may be found here. Santaevita is my daughter;
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/03/michael-gove-ed-balls-home-education"
I prefer this discussion thread:
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/carespace/forums/khyra-ishaq-scr-published-in-full-8097.aspx
It seems more accurate and in line with what actually happened.
"The difference with human rights is that they are inherent in everyone because they are human. They cannot be taken away, therefore, by the state or by an enitity such as God."
ReplyDeleteVery strange idea. There are certain rights which do not come from either God or the laws of men and yet have an independent existence and must be respected. I hesitate ask where these rights might have originated, because I don't think that anybody will be telling me!
"Those who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights understood this, not just intellectually but I would think viscerally as well (it's something you just know):"
Here however, you seem to be saying that these rights are no more than a codified system of laws drawn up by people. If this is so then such a set of laws could easily institute slavery or remove the right of a child to education.
"recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world'."
This is bare assertion. Simply saying something grandly does not make it true. If I stated with assurance that only white people had these rights, this would not make it true, even if I found quite a few people to agree with me. Or are you saying that these inalienable rights are created by a majority decision and can only be stated like this by a group of important people? I am not at all sure that you really know what a 'right' actually is.
"When we assert that somebody has a 'right' to something, it is important to be sure what we are saying."
ReplyDeleteA human being is born with certain rights - the right of self-ownership and the right NOT to have their property harmed. All human beings have these rights; child or adult.
A child, however, while immature cannot completely self-own, so their parents own the guardianship of them. This is perfectly natural in the truest sense of the words.
Often when people talk about 'rights' they are actually discussing 'goods' (a morally positive goal to be achieved through our acts) or privileges (something that can be given or taken by state or monarch [or the UN]).
To say 'I have a right to food and shelter' is not correct since these 'rights' would infringe upon the rights of others. ie if you have 'a right to food and shelter' then someone must be forced to provide these for you, which would be an infringements of their property rights.
We can say we have a right NOT to be hurt, not to be stolen from, not to be coerced, not to be enslaved, since all of these do not infringe on the rights of others.
"There are certain rights which do not come from either God or the laws of men and yet have an independent existence and must be respected. I hesitate ask where these rights might have originated, because I don't think that anybody will be telling me!"
ReplyDeleteRights in their real sense exist in the spirit of every human being.
They have been recognised, though not always honoured, throughout man's history.
"Rights in their real sense exist in the spirit of every human being."
ReplyDeleteAh, I see. You believe then that 'rights' are something with which humans are born. Tell me, what do you mean by a spirit? I don't think that I have one myself, being only a body with a functioning mind. Do you mean spirit in a religious sense; something a bit like a soul?
"I don't know why you choose to debate human rights as you seem to have a limited intellectual capacity to actually understand them, as evidenced by the comment,
ReplyDeleteTwo points strike me about this. Firstly, people who comment here are very often incapable of debating anything, whether epistemology or human rights, without being rude. Secondly, your own argument comes down in the end to;
"it's something you just know"
People in the past have 'just known' all sorts of things. Some of them have proved to be correct and others wrong. the things which they 'just knew' varied greatly from age to age and culture to culture. This is no argument at all. You seem to regard the current thinking on human rights as the summit of human ethics and philosophy, but that would be surprising. in a century or so we shall probably have a completely different view of the matter.
"A human being is born with certain rights - the right of self-ownership and the right NOT to have their property harmed. All human beings have these rights; child or adult."
ReplyDeleteThis is a fairly recent idea and is unlikely to prove to be an ultimate truth! Slavery and the sub-human nature of certain types of human were ideas which were pretty universal until a couple of centuries ago. No doubt in a couple of centuries from now we will have completely different ideas about rights. You state confidently that humans are born with these rights, but you do not say why this should be or upon what these rights are founded.
"Rights in their real sense exist in the spirit of every human being.
ReplyDeleteThey have been recognised, though not always honoured, throughout man's history."
The rights of helots in ancient Greece were neither honoured nor recognised. This has been the case throughout history. What rights have been universally recognised throughout man's history?
By the by, anonymous who feels that i lack the intellectual capacity to discuss human rights, the examples I gave were not proper rights, you are right about that. However, I was trying to work to the framework of a suggested definition of rights which included the following;
ReplyDelete"I'm saying that currently my child is able to make these choices, they effectively have the right by default because nobody can currently stop them making these choices."
Many adult human activities fall into this category and if that is how rights are to be defined then it casts a very broad net indeed.
"I am not at all sure that you really know what a 'right' actually is. "
ReplyDeleteAnd you, because you are infallible, know? Let us all into the secret then. What is a right, in your view.
"I am not at all sure that you really know what a 'right' actually is. "
ReplyDeletePeople keep confidently asserting that they have a 'right' to do this or that. I am not entirely sure what is meant by the expression, but suspect that what I said earlier might be the case. thsi was;
" No, when a right is guaranteed by law then it is equally applicable to all children, regardless of my feelings about it. I find it deplorable that eleven year old girls are being prescribed contraceptives and abortifacients at schools and clinics without the knowledge of their parents. However, such things are arguably their legal right and I must respect this. All that we can do is to try and change the law in order to change the rights. I am, as you have perhaps guessed, a legal positivist."
I do not set this out as being infallible, which is why I am asking others for their views to see if we can put the ideas together to form a definite view on the matter. Saying that a right is ' something you just know' does not seem helpful. As I have said, I 'just know' many things, but I doubt that they are really all right!
In England, it was once legal to own slaves; you would have called it a 'right' to own slaves. It was once legal for a man to beat his wife, you would have said a man has 'a right' to beat his wife. Yet, clearly these things are objectively wrong. Your definition of rights creates injustice and corruption; it advocates coercion, violence and theft.
ReplyDeleteUsing my definition of rights, we have a consistently moral framework upon which everyone is protected equally by their equal rights - whether man, woman, child.
These rights have been understood throughout human history and are the backdrop of every human endeavor/story, from the story of Moses to Star Wars! Its all the same: Freedom to live in peace, without hindrance from any king, government or bandit...
"In England, it was once legal to own slaves; you would have called it a 'right' to own slaves. It was once legal for a man to beat his wife, you would have said a man has 'a right' to beat his wife. "
ReplyDeleteYes, this is the point which I was making. At one time fallible men and women thought that they had a 'right' to own slaves. Today, other falliable men and women think that people have a 'right' to education. Views change over the years and what we today believe to be a 'right' might look very odd to future generations. This is because if you do not believe in God-given morality, then you believe that men and women dream up ethical systems and then codify them as rights and duties. Every such system will have mistakes in it and contain things that later generations will find plainly wrong. the 'rights' that we use today are no exception.
"Rights in their real sense exist in the spirit of every human being."
ReplyDelete"A human being is born with certain rights "
As far as I can see AM you are saying that we are born pre-programmed with certain rights and duties and that these exist in our minds from birth. You also seem to be saying that these are independent of man made laws, because as you point out, at one time the law permitted slavery. I suppose that what you are driving at is that these are part of the human mind, rather like th religious idea of a conscience. To that extent of course, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is irrelevant to you; you think that we already have these rights whether or not they are granted by law or tradition. You do not say how these rights and duties become part of the mind and how it is that we are born with them already, regardless of culture and society. i am guessing that you are a theist and belive that God placed these things within us. Is that right? If not, where do they come from, how are we actually born with them and have them as part of our spirit? Are they coded in our DNA and receive them from our parents? I am quite interested in this.
"No, when a right is guaranteed by law then it is equally applicable to all children, regardless of my feelings about it."
ReplyDeleteSo in your view, rights are something that we are given permission to do by those in authority?
"So in your view, rights are something that we are given permission to do by those in authority? "
ReplyDeleteWell I'm not sure how else we could acquire them. Where do you think we get them from?
What are Human Rights?
ReplyDeleteHuman rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
Often, not always, therefore the UN position is that there are human rights, some of which are given by those in authority and protected by laws, and others that are not.
"Often, not always, therefore the UN position is that there are human rights, some of which are given by those in authority and protected by laws, and others that are not."
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all sure why we would be taking the United Nations word for this, but even if we do, it does not really answer the question. I wonder where those rights that are not 'given by those in autority and protected by laws' be coming from? Do you have any idea? Not from God seemingly and not from the laws of Man. Perhaps they exist independently of us, like some natural force such as gravity. Who then devised them and how can we recognise this natural moral law upon which these rights are founded?
"To say 'I have a right to food and shelter' is not correct since these 'rights' would infringe upon the rights of others. ie if you have 'a right to food and shelter' then someone must be forced to provide these for you, which would be an infringements of their property rights."
ReplyDeleteVery rummy indeed, AM. I suppose by the same token, for a child to say, 'I have a right to an education' would be incorrect because this means that somebody else will be forced to provide the education? This means that by the child having the 'right' to an education, somebody else's liberty must be infringed, if I follow your argument correctly? And yet if I wished to apprentice my five year old son to a chimmneysweep, I would be stopped and my liberty infringed upon and I would be forced instead to provide and education for the kid? Sounds like it is my rights which are being trampled over here!
We are born with the liberty to behave as we wish; the exercise of that liberty is constrained by others wishing to exercise their liberty.
ReplyDeleteMost communities deal with this conundrum by having laws, traditions, customs etc, that encourage or require certain behaviours or discourage or prohibit others.
Arguments about whether there are inherent *specific* rights is not particularly helpful. One could agree that people have a right to life, or a right to eat, but that wouldn't help them much if there was an outbreak of plague or a famine.
It is helpful to discuss specific rights in relation to what specific rights governments are expected to safeguard in law, however.
The rights of an individual are not static things, they are constantly under negotiation with others.
Ah suzyg, you have revealed yourself to be another legal positivist! I knew we had more in common than at first appears.
ReplyDelete"I'm not at all sure why we would be taking the United Nations word for this, but even if we do, it does not really answer the question. I wonder where those rights that are not 'given by those in autority and protected by laws' be coming from? Do you have any idea?"
ReplyDeleteNot really, I'm groping in the dark, hence the appeal to authority (in the form of the UN - at least some other people seem to have the same view as me so I'm probably not a complete crank even though I'm not 100% sure why). Philosophy is not really my line.
I do feel that morally people have the right to be free to make their own decisions as long as they do not remove the freedoms of others. I do see the point that the rights of parents might clash with the rights of children in some cases but don't think that day-to-day decisions should be taken out of the hands of parents by the state except in exceptional circumstances. Parents (the vast majority) are more likely to have the best interests of the child at heart than the state and often the child's happiness depends at least in part on the parents. This is why I've never said that all mothers should stay at home and look after children, for instance. Often this is what children would prefer in an ideal world, but if the mother resents staying at home and is unhappy as a result it's not an ideal world and the child would probably be better off with a working but happy mother. Likewise, I doubt many children would choose to be home educated if their mother/father absolutely hated it because it would just not work.
" I'm groping in the dark"
ReplyDeleteWe are all of us, me included, groping in the dark with this question. That's why i have not been making any dogmatic statements about it but instead asking others.
On Inalienable Rights, Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1776:
ReplyDelete"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
He is saying that inalienable rights are inherent in the nature of Man. These inalienable rights are a natural embodiment of Man's inherent need for freedom.
He says "that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights". Notice he says 'Creator' not God - he was not a Christian - 'Creator' can be Mother Nature/ DNA/ Rama - they all fit.
The point is, these rights are an essential part of what makes us human beings. They cannot be given or taken any more than 'maternal instinct' or the abilityy to fall in love can be given or taken.
AM"In England, it was once legal to own slaves; you would have called it a 'right' to own slaves. It was once legal for a man to beat his wife, you would have said a man has 'a right' to beat his wife. "
ReplyDeleteSW: Yes, this is the point which I was making. At one time fallible men and women thought that they had a 'right' to own slaves. Today, other falliable men and women think that people have a 'right' to education. Views change over the years and what we today believe to be a 'right' might look very odd to future generations.
My definition of rights is objective and neutral and potects everyone equally ( now and in the future) from the whims and corruption of all 'law givers and takers'.
Slavery could not happen if these rights were adhered to, wife-beating could not happen if these rights were adhered to.
notSW:Very rummy indeed, AM. I suppose by the same token, for a child to say, 'I have a right to an education' would be incorrect because this means that somebody else will be forced to provide the education? This means that by the child having the 'right' to an education, somebody else's liberty must be infringed, if I follow your argument correctly?
ReplyDeleteCorrect. Education is not a right, it is a good.
SW:And yet if I wished to apprentice my five year old son to a chimmneysweep, I would be stopped and my liberty infringed upon and I would be forced instead to provide and education for the kid? Sounds like it is my rights which are being trampled over here!
This chimney sweep argument is part of the brainwashing we've all been subjected to throughout the C20th. If government was not there to protect the children, the bad parents would have them all up chimneys...
Human beings have survived and thrived, throughout the most difficult conditions, because we are so protective of our offspring.
Bad men will always be around, we can't do anything about that. These bad men are still around despite all your 'child protection' and 'state education'. The only people who take notice of 'laws' are the ones who don't need them in the first place.
"Yes, this is the point which I was making. At one time fallible men and women thought that they had a 'right' to own slaves. Today, other falliable men and women think that people have a 'right' to education. Views change over the years and what we today believe to be a 'right' might look very odd to future generations."
ReplyDeleteThe main difference here, and why the situations are not comparable in my view, is that slavery and beating women are powers over someone else - they harm another human - this is not the case with education in the sense you mean. Children are forced to accept education even against their will so I suppose there are some similarities with slavery but this isn't quite the angle you meant I suspect. I suppose you could claim that taking money (taxes) by force in order to pay for the education of another's children might be comparable and I would have some sympathy with that view. However, this is obviously not the case in home education as we do not take money from the state (so far, anyway) and autonomous education removes at least some of the infringement of the child's freedoms. Maybe people will look back at compulsion in education in much the same way as we look back at slavery and wife beating? Nice thought.