Can you be harmed by being born? Is it any business of the state which values parents teach their children? Should parents be licensed? Should we engineer the end of homo sapiens in favour of a morally superior species?

Should Charlie Gard’s parents have been allowed to take him abroad or were doctors and judges right to let him die? Are there parental rights and, if so, what are their basis, scope and limits? What about children’s rights? Is a 12 year-old’s consent to contraceptive treatment valid? Should 7 year-olds be forced to undergo surgery against their will?

Should private schools be abolished? What about faith schools? Do children have a right to an ‘open future’ and, if so, how can this be secured while respecting their parents’ freedom of thought, expression and religion? Are values the legitimate business of state education? Should home-schooling be allowed?

How should we respond to child murderers? When do children become criminally responsible and how should we respond to those who commit crimes for which they aren’t responsible?

What should be done for children at serious risk of harm in other countries? What special obligations, if any, do states have for unaccompanied child refugees?

This module will explore a selection of ethical questions concerning children, parents and the state, drawing on insights from developmental psychology and law, as well as philosophy. No previous knowledge of philosophy, psychology or law will be assumed.

Knowledge and Understanding:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will be able to:

• demonstrate an understanding of core elements of the course material;
• identify central ethical questions concerning children and key positions addressing them;

• evaluate ethical claims concerning children, in the context of historical and contemporary discussions;
• understand relevant empirical findings and discussions of their philosophical implications;     
• understand relevant legal discussions and their philosophical implications;
• bring the insights of philosophy to bear on questions concerning moral education, child psychology, the law and public policy.

Intellectual Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will be able to:

• analyse the structure of an argument;

• critically evaluate an argument;
• compare and contrast different positions on an issue;
• adjudicate disputes.

Discipline Specific (including practical) Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will be able to:

• critically read and analyse a philosophical text;

• use philosophical vocabulary appropriate to the subject matter of the specific course;
• formulate and defend a philosophical thesis;
• constructively discuss philosophical ideas with others.

This course is taught in 10, two-hour sessions, delivered on a weekly basis.

There will be a mixture of lectures and seminars, the precise proportion to be determined by the needs of the students enrolled. The seminar element may include debate, discussion, group activities, presentations and readings. Additional reading material will be recommended and a reading list will be supplied. If appropriate, other materials such as documentaries may also be included. Course handouts will be provided as appropriate.

The seminars will encourage the development of knowledge and understanding of the ideas and concepts discussed in the course. Intellectual skills will be encouraged through participation in class discussion, reading and coursework.

Academic Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will have:

• found relevant resources in the library and online;

• assessed the reliability of different sources of information;
• demonstrated a critical approach to academic texts.

Transferable/employability Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will have shown that s/he can:

• recognise, analyse and criticise arguments;

• explain and defend a view clearly and concisely whether orally or in writing;
• respond constructively to disagreement;
• evaluate claims in the context of historical and contemporary debates concerning children;
• formulate useful questions in the context of philosophical theory, child psychology, judicial opinion, the law and public policy.

Type of assessment  % Contribution Title Duration (if applicable) Approx. date of Assessment

Issue identification       5% Question Formulation  Various

Exegesis of 400-500 words   20% Glossary Entry  Agreed by week 3/4 and submitted in week 6/7

Paper of 1,300-1,500 words  75%  Paper  Set by week 5/6 and submitted shortly after end of course

We will be concerned with normative questions concerning children, parents and the state. Discussion will be informed, as appropriate, by classical and contemporary philosophy, including feminist approaches, empirical work in the human sciences, especially child psychology, and law, including relevant judicial judgements and legislative issues.

The following list of sample topics illustrates the kind of subject matter which may be discussed but the specific issues selected will vary. The questions listed for each topic are intended as representative examples of relevant issues and are not intended to exhaust those which might be discussed.

Fundamental concepts

• Status.
  • What exactly distinguishes children from adults and what normative implications does the basis of this distinction have?
  • Moral status.
    • How should children’s moral responsibility be assessed, given that children develop capacities for moral agency gradually, a fact with which many moral theories seem ill-equipped to cope?
  • Legal status.
    • What rights and responsibilities should the law recognise children to have?
      • How should children’s criminal responsibility be assessed?
        • How should we treat children who, lacking criminal responsibility, commit acts which would otherwise be serious crimes?
        • What special obligations, if any, do we have to children who commit crimes for which they are criminally responsible?
      • What say, if any, should courts give children when deciding cases in which adults disagree about who should care for them, how they should be educated, what medical treatment they should receive or whether they may be used as organ or tissue ‘donors’?
• Rights.
  • Children’s rights.
    • What rights do children have and how should these be safeguarded?
      • Do children have a right to an ‘open future’?
    • When may or should the state override parental decisions in order to protect their children’s rights?
  • Parental rights.
    • Are there specifically parental rights which are not mere functions of parents’ responsibility to safeguard the rights of their children? If so, what is the basis, scope and duration of these rights?
  • How should conflicts between parents’ and children’s rights be resolved?
    • Should parents be permitted to have their male infants circumcised for religious reasons?
    • To what extent should parents be permitted to isolate their children from external influences at odds with their religious, political or ethical commitments?
  • Familial/parental autonomy.
    • Is there a coherent conception of ‘familial’ or ‘parental autonomy’? If so, what is its content and value? What implications does it have for the state’s responsibility to safeguard children’s rights?

Applications

• Asylum.
  • What moral obligations do other states have to children at risk of serious harm in their countries of origin?
  • What moral obligations do states have to unaccompanied refugees and asylum seekers who have fled such conditions?
• Education.
  • Should parents be permitted to choose whether their children receive sex education or learn about (other) religions? Or is it permissible or required for the state to ensure children receive this, regardless of their parents’ wishes?
  • Should private schools be abolished?
  • Should the state fund non-secular education?
  • Should faith schools be abolished?
  • Should parents be permitted to home-school their children? If so, what may or should the state do to ensure the quality of education parents provide?
  • Should parents be permitted to prevent their children receiving the final years of secondary education, as Amish communities do in the United States, if allowing children to complete this education would threaten the viability of their religious communities?
• Moral education and development.
  • What is the proper aim of moral education? How can this aim be most effectively pursued? Should we teach children moral principles? Should we foster their moral integrity? Should we seek to habituate virtuous traits and de-habituate or prevent habituation of vicious ones?
  • Does the moral responsibility of adults for their actions depend on the care and education they received as children? To what extent should the courts recognise the effects of childhood environments in determining the culpability of adult defendants?  Who we are as adults is heavily influenced by how we are treated as children. What implications does this have for the responsibilities and rights of the state to regulate family life?
• Paediatric ethics.
  • How should decisions concerning children’s medical treatment be made?
    • How should children’s capacity to make decisions about their medical treatment be assessed?
    • When children have the capacity to make decisions, should those decisions be respected, even if their parents disagree? Should they be respected even if different decisions would be in the children’s best interests?
    • When children do not have the capacity to make decisions, how should those decisions be made?
      • On what basis should parents make such decisions?
      • When should medical staff ask the courts to override these decisions?
      • When should the law permit or require courts to grant such requests?

Are any of the ‘best interests’ test, according to which such decisions must be in children’s best interests, the ‘harm threshold’, according to which any parental decision which is not likely to cause children significant harm must be respected, and the ‘zone of parental discretion’, according to which parents may make any decision within a zone of acceptable choices, defensible? 

• How should decisions concerning children’s participation in medical research be made?
  • How should children’s capacity to make decisions about their participation be assessed?
  • When children have the capacity to make decisions, should those decisions be respected, even if their parents disagree?
  • When children do not have the capacity to make decisions, how should those decisions be made?
    • On what basis should parents make such decisions?
    • On what basis should medical staff make such decisions?
    • When should the courts be consulted and on what basis should they make such decisions?
• In what circumstances, if any, does the state have a right to insist children be vaccinated?
• Should children born deaf be given cochlear implants?

• Procreation.
  • Should parents be licensed?
  • What responsibilities do people have when deciding whether to conceive children or carry pregnancies to term?
  • Can a child’s birth constitute a harm to that child?
  • Does the state have a right or responsibility to intervene when pregnant women act in ways likely to cause their foetuses significant harm?
  • Should Deaf parents be permitted to use technologies allowing them to select embryos who will be deaf?
  • Should parents be allowed to select or manipulate the offspring’s genes to ensure that their children have, say, an ear for music, great athletic ability or superior intelligence?
  • Should we engineer the end of homo sapiens in favour of a morally superior species?

The course may draw on case studies and examples from fiction and non-fiction to illustrate the theoretical positions  discussed and students are encouraged to draw further examples from their own experience.

Students with little or no philosophical background should not expect to understand everything discussed, as many of the texts assume some philosophical knowledge. They are encouraged to look at some of the texts to see if the kinds of issues discussed are of interest. Class sessions, handouts and supplementary readings will fill in necessary philosophical background.

1 Useful anthologies

Anca Gheaus, Gideon Calder and Jurgen De Wispelaere, eds. (2019). The  Routledge  Handbook  of the Philosophy of Childhood and Children. Routledge Handbooks in Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge.

Randall R. Curren, ed. (2007). Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

2 Fundamental concepts

2.1 Status

Contemporary philosophy

David Archard (2006). ‘The Moral and Political Status of Children’. Public Policy Research

(Mar.–May 2006), 6–12.

2.2 Rights

Modern philosophy

John Stuart Mill (197:). On Liberty. Ed. by Elizabeth Rapaport. Indianapolis:  Hackett.  Repr., ch. V.

Contemporary philosophy

Joel Feinberg (19:0). ‘The Child’s Right to  an  Open  Future’.  In  Whose  Child?  Children’s Rights, Parental Authority, and State Power. Ed. by William Aiken and Hugh LaFollette. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield.

Reprinted in various later anthologies and collections, including Curren (2007) (see section 1).

Barbara Hall (1999). ‘The Origin of Parental Rights’. Public Affairs Quarterly 13.1, 73–:2.

Avery Kolers and Tim Bayne (2001). ‘“Are You My Mommy?” On the Genetic Basis of Parent- hood’. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1:.3, 273–2:5.

Mianna Lotz (2006). ‘Feinberg, Mills, and the Child’s Right to an Open Future’. Journal of Social Philosophy 37.4, 537–551.

T. H. McLaughlin (19:4). ‘Parental Rights and the Religious Upbringing of Children’. Journal of Philosophy of Education 1:.1, 75–:3.

Joseph Millum (2010). ‘How Do We Acquire Parental Rights?’ Social Theory and Practice 36.1, 112–132.

Phillip Montague (2000). ‘The Myth of Parental Rights’. Social Theory and Practice 26.1, 47–6:.

Edgar Page (19:4). ‘Parental Rights’. Journal of Applied Philosophy 1.2, 1:7–203.

Ferdinand Schoeman (19:0). ‘Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family’. Ethics 91.1, 6–19.

Liam Shields (2016). ‘How Bad Can a Good Enough Parent Be?’ Canadian Journal of Philo- sophy 46.2, 163–1:2.

Law

Children Act 19:9, as amended.

UNGA (19:9). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Res 44/25. 20th Nov. 19:9.

3 Applications

3.1 Education

Ancient philosophy

Plato (199:). The Republic. Trans.  by  Benjamin Jowett.  Fairbanks,  Arkansas and Salt Lake  City, Utah: Project Gutenberg, 1st Oct. 199:. Project Gutenberg ebook: 1497.

Modern philosophy

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (2004). Emile. Trans. by Barbara Foxley. Fairbanks, Arkansas and Salt Lake City, Utah: Project Gutenberg, 1st Apr. 2004. Project Gutenberg ebook: 5427.

Contemporary philosophy

Tammy Harel Ben-Shahar (2016). ‘Equality in Education – Why We Must Go All the Way’.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19, :3–100.

James Oliphant (1907). ‘Parental Rights and Public Education’. International Journal of Ethics

17.2, 205–217.

The case which established that Amish parents could not be compelled to send their children to school after eighth grade.

Law

Melissa Moschella (2014). ‘Natural Law, Parental Rights and Education Policy’. American Journal of Jurisprudence 59.2, 197–227.

Wisconsin v Yoder et al 205 (US Supreme Court 1972) (406 U.S. 205).

3.2 Moral education & development

Contemporary philosophy

N. Ann Davis (199:). ‘Moral Agency, Individual Responsibility, and Human Psychology’. Public Affairs Quarterly 12.1, 51–7:. JSTOR: 40436006.

Psychology

Anna Freud and Sophie Dann (1951). ‘An Experiment in Group Upbringing’. In Psychoanalytic Study on the Child. Ed. by R. S. Eissler.  New York:  International Universities Press, 127– 16:.

An account concerning six young children who were unable to form normal attachments to adult carers during the earliest years of their lives, due to their internment in Theresienstadt Concentration Camp, but who had developed extremely strong bonds with each other. The article describes these relationships, their attitudes to the U.K. staff who cared for them for about a year, prior to their adoption by families elsewhere, their development during this time and information concerning their later psychological health as adults.

Martin L. Hoffman (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

An account of the role of empathy in moral development and motivation.

3.3 Paediatric ethics

Contemporary philosophy

Douglas Diekema (2004). ‘Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: the Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention’. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25.4 (July 2004),  243–264.

Ferdinand Schoeman (19:5). ‘Parental Discretion and Children’s Rights: Background and Im- plications for Medical Decision-Making’. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 10.1, 45–62.

Legal cases

Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust v Evans and James [201:] EWCA 9:4 (Civ).

The Alfie Evans case.

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v Yates and Others [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam), (2017) 157 BMLR 0001.

The Charlie Gard case.

3.4 Procreation

Contemporary philosophy

Dan W. Brock (2005). ‘Shaping Future Children: Parental Rights and Societal Interests’.

Journal of Political Philosophy 13.4, 377–39:.

Bernard G. Prusak (2010). ‘What Are Parents For? Reproductive Ethics After the Nonidentity Problem’. Hastings Center Report 40.2, 37–47. JSTOR: 40663836.

Derek Shiller (2017). ‘In Defense of Artificial Replacement’. Bioethics 31.2, 393–399.

4 Useful background resources

4.1 Ethics

Cheshire Calhoun, ed. (2004). Setting the Moral Compass. Studies in Feminist Philosophy.

Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

An anthology of contributions to moral philosophy and moral psychology by women.

Hugh LaFollette, ed. (2014). Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. 4th ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Jan.

2014.

Part III is especially relevant, although the focus is slightly different the one taken in this module.

Louis P. Pojman, ed. (2004). The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature.

2nd ed. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

An introductory ethics anthology which combines philosophical texts with fiction, non-fiction and other resources.

4.2 Political philosophy

Jonathan Wolff (1996). An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.