“That parents have obligations to their children that their children do not have to them is not because children are lesser humans. It is because we parents have freely chosen to place our children in the positions they are in, living with us instead of having been adopted at birth, say. It is we parents who have the obligations to our children, not our children who have obligations to us.”
– Sarah Fitz-Claridge
“In what ways is Taking Children Seriously different from simply taking everybody seriously?”
Taking Children Seriously implies taking everybody seriously, not just children. The only reason to mention taking children specifically seriously is that the vast majority of people take all other groups seriously except children. Children are still viewed through the lens of paternalism, still controlled ‘for their own good’, still unfree.
That parents have obligations to their children that their children do not have to them is not because children are lesser humans. It is because we parents have freely chosen to place our children in the positions they are in, living with us instead of having been adopted at birth, say. Notice that it is we parents who have the obligations to our children, not our children who have obligations to us.
For further explanation see this post.
See also:
- If children are people just like adults, why should we treat our children any differently from how we treat adults?
- Home education in Britain
- Taking Children Seriously: a new view of children
Sarah Fitz-Claridge, 2022, Taking Children Seriously FAQ: ‘In what ways is Taking Children Seriously different from simply taking everybody seriously?’, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/in-what-ways-is-taking-children-seriously-different-from-simply-taking-everybody-seriously/