“[A problem arises when parents] want to protect their children from things they consider threats which their children do not—things which the children may even consider goods.”
– Tim Starr
From the archives: The original post was posted on 1st December, 1994
“Because the child is valuable does not justify coercion. It is because a parent instinctually knows that (s)he must act to protect her/his smalll and rather helpless, ie vulnerable, child, that (s)he may act in a fashion that may appear to be coercive.”
“Unless you can convince the parent that such ‘protective’ behavior is not in the best interest of the child, the parent will continue whether the behavior is coercive or not.”
This still doesn’t answer the normative question of what, if any, justification there is for this behavior. Depending upon the normative status of the behavior, it may be justifiable to do more than rely upon the parent’s protective instincts and/or peaceful persuasion.
“Tim intends to lead us to see the necessity of a ‘theory of necessity’ but [what is that theory?]”
All right, here’s an attempt to explain my theory, which remains partially tentative:
The basic idea is that coercion may be justified in two ways: self-defense, or the defense of others—but only as much as necessary to defend against the threat, no more. Coercion in self-defense is justified by one’s right to self-preservation, the defense of others is justified by theirs.
Determining what constitutes self-defense is fairly easy since each of us is usually in a good position to know what our values are. The hard part comes in when it comes to the defense of others because we’re not in as good a position to know what their values are. However, my theory is that it’s only justifiable to defend others according to their values, not ours, insofar as they differ. In my view, it’s wrong to use coercion to defend another against something they would value.
Most parents are perfectly prepared to protect their children from things they consider threats to their children. The problem comes in when they want to protect their children from things they consider threats which their children do not—things which the children may even consider goods.
This conflict of values between parent and child is where I think most of the trouble comes from. Some think that the parent’s values should take priority over the child’s, some think the opposite. I’d take the position that the presumption should be in favor of having the child’s values be the ones by which goods and evils for the child are to be judged.
See also:
Tim Starr, 1994, ‘Whose values matter?’, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/whose-values-matter