[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles

Title: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?
Source: www.abc.net.au
URL Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational ... zone/new-family-values/6437058
Published: May 25, 2015
Author: Joe Gelonesi
Post Date: 2015-05-25 12:39:41 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 2323
Comments: 28

Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?

Friday 1 May 2015 1:19PM Joe Gelonesi

Plato famously wanted to abolish the family and put children into care of the state. Some still think the traditional family has a lot to answer for, but some plausible arguments remain in favour of it. Joe Gelonesi meets a philosopher with a rescue plan very much in tune with the times.

So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families.

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

It’s not the first time a philosopher has thought about such a drastic solution. Two thousand four hundred years ago another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state.

Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state. Aristotle didn’t agree, citing the since oft-used argument of the neglect of things held in common. Swift echoes the Aristotelian line. The break-up of the family is plausible maybe, he thinks, but even to the most hard-hearted there’s something off-key about it.

‘Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong,’ he says.

Intuitively it doesn’t feel right, but for a philosopher, solutions require more than an initial reaction. So Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defence of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

‘Parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and wellbeing of adults.’

It seems that from both the child’s and adult’s point of view there is something to be said about living in a family way. This doesn’t exactly parry the criticism that families exacerbate social inequality. For this, Swift and Brighouse needed to sort out those activities that contribute to unnecessary inequality from those that don't.

Mother and child Image: Does having a loving home life confer children with an unfair advantage? (Getty Images)

‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.

The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.

For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion—that perhaps in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift’s mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.

‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

Swift makes it clear that although both elite schooling and bedtime stories might both skew the family game, restricting the former would not interfere with the creation of the special loving bond that families give rise to. Taking the books away is another story.

‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’

So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

In the end Swift agrees that all activities will cause some sort of imbalance—from joining faith communities to playing Saturday cricket—and it’s for this reason that a theory of familial goods needs to be established if the family is to be defended against cries of unfairness.

‘We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage,’ he says.

It’s the usual bind in ethics and moral philosophy: very often values clash and you have to make a call. For Swift and Brighouse, the line sits shy of private schooling, inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage.

Their conclusions remind one of a more idyllic (or mythic) age for families: reading together, attending religious services, playing board games, and kicking a ball in the local park, not to mention enjoying roast dinner on Sunday. It conjures a family setting worthy of a classic Norman Rockwell painting. But not so fast: when you ask Swift what sort of families is he talking about, the ‘50s reverie comes crashing down into the 21st century.

‘When we talk about parents’ rights, we’re talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it’s not one’s biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented.’

For Swift and Brighouse, our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: if you biologically produce a child you own it.

‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’

Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.

‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’

From this realisation arises another twist: two is not the only number.

‘Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift.

It’s here that the traditional notions of what constitutes the family come apart. A necessary product of the Swift and Brighouse analytical defence is the calling into question of some rigid definitions.

‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’

For traditionalists, though, Swift provides a small concession.

‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’

Although it’s controversial, it seems that Swift and Brighouse are philosophically inching their way to a novel accommodation for a weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing. The bathwater might be going out, but they’re keen to hold on to the baby.


Poster Comment:

Now you know why Leftists are the way they are they were raised by parents who could give a schitt less about them and they feel everybody else should have to suffer the way they did. Some good links in the article at the website.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: CZ82 (#0)

"another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state."

Yet, two paragraphs prior, the author pointed out that those with the means took their children OUT of state schools and put them in private institutions.

Gosh, maybe "the state" isn't the solution after all.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-25   12:51:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: CZ82 (#0)

"Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,’ says Swift."

Over thousands of years with thousands of different societies around the globe, you'd think that if three or four parents were superior to one man - one woman, it would have been done already.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-25   12:57:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: CZ82 (#0)

from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

Hillary: "It takes a village to raise children"...

Commenter's note: To hell with hypothetical level playing fields.

rlk  posted on  2015-05-25   12:58:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: rlk (#3)

"If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field."

"Level" in the sense that the misery is shared equally.

If a strong family is admittedly better, why "level the playing field" by eliminating it? Why not "level the playing field" by developing stongs families where they don't exist now?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-25   13:24:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: CZ82 (#0)

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

This guy is completely clueless. Calling him or anyone who "thinks" like that a fool is bragging on them.

THERE IS NO SUCH FREAKING THING AS EQUALITY IN NATURE YOU FREAKING LOON! We are ALL individuals with different strengths and weaknesses,and different ways of looking at and interpreting the same events.

We all know you leftist drew the short straw that kept you out the genetic creativity pool,so you want everyone to be the same mindless robotic drones that you are so you don't feel bad about yourselves.

Guess what,Bozo? You NEED to feel bad about yourselves. Maybe that would even encourage you to start thinking for yourselves?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-25   13:39:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#2)

Over thousands of years with thousands of different societies around the globe, you'd think that if three or four parents were superior to one man - one woman, it would have been done already.

Why would anyone think that?

There is nothing wrong with multiple parents as long as they are all reading from the same playbook. The reason you don't see it more often is because humans are programmed at the genetic survival level to want their children to have the best of everything instead of sharing everything equally. The survival of the species required it.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-25   13:43:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: All (#3)

These sh!theads would go on a crusade to decapitate everyone with an IQ of over 105 to produce equality.

rlk  posted on  2015-05-25   13:43:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: sneakypete (#5)

Guess what,Bozo? You NEED to feel bad about yourselves. Maybe that would even encourage you to start thinking for yourselves?

No time for that, they are too busy trying to think for everyone else.

Because they have all the answers dontcha know?

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-05-25   13:44:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Dead Culture Watch (#8)

Because they have all the answers dontcha know?

The only "answer" these bozo's have is "UNFAIR",and that is an admission on their part that they knew they drew they were short-changed at the genetic level so they want everyone else to be handicapped by law so they don't look bad by comparison.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-25   13:47:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: rlk (#7)

"These sh!theads would go on a crusade to decapitate everyone with an IQ of over 105 to produce equality."

Exactly!

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-25   14:01:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: sneakypete (#5)

Maybe that would even encourage you to start thinking for yourselves?

You're expecting way too much from someone who has a low double digit IQ and really needs to be on some different meds pete.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-26   15:23:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: sneakypete (#5)

We all know you leftist drew the short straw that kept you out the genetic creativity pool,so you want everyone to be the same mindless robotic drones that you are so you don't feel bad about yourselves.

They also got beat with a "lazy stick" and require handouts.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-05-26   15:34:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#2)

you'd think that if three or four parents were superior to one man - one woman, it would have been done already.

Seems to work well for tribal predators, like the Mormons and Jews.

VxH  posted on  2015-05-28   7:25:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: sneakypete (#5) (Edited)

THERE IS NO SUCH FREAKING THING AS EQUALITY IN NATURE YOU FREAKING LOON!

That's why progressive Corporate hives have to manufacture "equality" artificially by demanding allegiance to, and worship of, their "culture".

Communism is Collectivism is Corporatism.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs...

VxH  posted on  2015-05-28   7:31:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: sneakypete (#5)

We all know you leftist

You are a leftist.

You agree with Hillary and Obama more then Pericles.

You agree with Stalin more then Willie Green.

You are the wrinkled face of the left.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-28   8:15:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: sneakypete (#5)

THERE IS NO SUCH FREAKING THING AS EQUALITY IN NATURE YOU FREAKING LOON!

You like forcing things you think are = on society. Except they aren't = they are just sex perverts and sex criminals that you support.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-28   8:17:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: VxH (#14)

That's why progressive Corporate hives have to manufacture "equality" artificially by demanding allegiance to, and worship of, their "culture".

Like Pete. Yes.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-28   8:18:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: sneakypete, Piricles (#5) (Edited)

THERE IS NO SUCH FREAKING THING AS EQUALITY IN NATURE! We are ALL individuals with different strengths and weaknesses

Absolutely true. Try explaining that to Piricles.

Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy

GrandIsland  posted on  2015-05-28   9:04:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: VxH (#13)

"Seems to work well for tribal predators, like the Mormons and Jews."

Work well? How would you know? It was practiced by the Mormons as part of their religion for only about 60 years. And by the Jews 1,000 years ago as part of their religion.

But, as I said, I'm not aware of any society which chose polygamy as the preferred way to define a family.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-28   15:29:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: VxH (#14)

Communism is Collectivism is Corporatism.

And "Corporatism" (is that an actual word?) is Fascism..

A fascist is nothing but a communist that has evolved.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-28   17:58:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#15)

We all know you leftist

You are a leftist.

Is that right,comrade?

ROFLMAO!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-28   17:59:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#17)

That's why progressive Corporate hives have to manufacture "equality" artificially by demanding allegiance to, and worship of, their "culture".

Like Pete. Yes.

I know this might sprain your brain,but which one of us is demanding everyone think and live alike,and want to live in a religious dictatorship,comrade?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-05-28   18:01:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: sneakypete (#20)

A fascist is nothing but a communist that has evolved.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Pass the BOHICA.

VxH  posted on  2015-05-28   23:01:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: misterwhite (#19) (Edited)

LOL. You emphasise "part of their religion" as if religious indoctrination doesn't define the society that exists within its context.

VxH  posted on  2015-05-28   23:06:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: CZ82 (#0)

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.

Predictable

TrappedInMd  posted on  2015-05-28   23:49:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: VxH (#24)

"LOL. You emphasise "part of their religion" as if religious indoctrination doesn't define the society that exists within its context."

Of course a society is defined within the context of the religion. But I am referring to the society of the state in which the religion exists.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-29   10:15:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#26)

But I am referring to the society of the state in which the religion exists.

You got that backwards.

Got state-establishments?

VxH  posted on  2015-05-30   7:31:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: VxH (#27)

"Got state-establishments?"

Not anymore. Which, of course, makes my point.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-05-30   10:01:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com