Tweet
Discliamer: I found this article on another forum and found it interesting. I thought I would share it with you for your comments. I am not the author and do not necesarily subscribe to this viewpoint.
Why children should rebel
by [email protected] (Eugene) Aug 15, 2004 at 03:49 PM
Our current concept of childhood is a relatively recent invention.
Throughout most cultures throughout most of human history, individuals
today
referred to as "children" had the right to marry, serve in the army, and
even act as the head of state.
We can still see remnants of this in ceremonies such as Barmitzvah
celebrations practiced by those who follow the Old Testament, though the
true purpose of such events has been obscured by today's society. In the
Judeo-Christian culture, boys who reached the age of 13 were considered to
be full fledged adults, with all the associated rights and
responsibilities.
This is a far cry from today's attitudes and practices, where even
individuals considerably older than 13 are still not allowed to own
property
in their own name, enter legal agreements, or have any significant
decision
making power over how they are to live their lives. Instead, they are
entirely at the almost arbitrary mercy of their parents or legal
guardians.
This situation is similar to the subordinate legal status women had to
their
husbands just a few generations ago. It is in effect a form of slavery,
though under the supposed belief that this is in the best interest of
those
who are enslaved. It was only in 1920 that women finally gained the right
to
vote in the United States. Prior to this date, it was considered
outrageous
to propose that these "irrational creatures" could be trusted to have a
say
in governance.
In exactly the same way, most people currently assume that children are
not
intellectually or emotionally competent to act as our equals in society.
This view is reflected in our language when people tell each other to
start
"behaving like adults."
However, a few moments reflection should make us realize that "typical
adult
behavior" consists of resolving our disputes through military
confrontations
and through bitter lawsuits. Nothing in our daily behavior is in any way
superior to the behavior of those we refer to as "children."
The very definition of what it means to be an "adult" has been warped by
our
society. When we refer to an "adult horse" or an "adult dog", the word
"adult" refers to the reproductive maturity of being able to produce
offspring. By contrast, our society's legal definition is based on an
arbitrary age demarcation, long after biological adulthood has already
been
attained.
Neither biological adulthood nor legal adulthood are a prerequisite for
intellectually or emotional maturity. Nor are they a guarantee of it. Some
people are competent to make their own decisions by the age of seven.
Others
are still not able to run their own lives even by the age of thirty.
Just as racism is unacceptable, it is also unacceptable to use arbitrary
age
demarcation lines to determine who will have which rights.
Consider for example the right to drive a car. We obviously need tests to
determine who can be trusted with this responsibility. However, to be
fair,
the same test must apply to all people, regardless of race or gender, and
regardless of youth. If someone successfully passes the written exam and
the
"behind the wheel" test, then there is no justification to deny a driving
license on the grounds that the applicant is too young.
The same principle can be applied to all other areas of life. There is
indeed a real need for limitations. For example, newborn infants can not
be
trusted to make their own decisions. However, the point in time at which
people are given various rights and responsibilities must be decided by
fair
and objective tests, not by arbitrary age demarcation.
If a five year old child born in the United States can pass the same test
immigrants take to attain citizenship, then this child should be given the
right to vote just as all other Americans. If a six year old child can
pass
a test demonstrating that he is aware of all the consequences of the
issues
involved, then he should be allowed to determine who he will live with and
where he will go to school. If a seven year old child can pass a test
demonstrating that he has the intellectual fortitude to make his own
decisions in life, then he should be given the full right to determine the
course of his own destiny.
Although no child should ever be forced to take these tests against his
will, these tests should always be made available to any child who wishes
to
take them.
Of course, there are many people who doubt that any child this young can
pass such tests. However, this is not the issue. Even if we were to
believe
that no child will ever pass these tests, we should not deny them the
right
to just "take the test" simply because they are too young.
If our skeptical predications are correct, and no child ever passes these
tests, then no harm has been done, since no child will have attained these
freedoms. If only one in a million passes this test, then nothing will
have
changed for the over 99% percent of the children who did not pass, but we
should not restrict the rights of this one child who did pass simply
because
of the poor performance of his peers.
There is a reason why we are reluctant to allow children to demonstrate
their competence through such tests. It is the fear that they will
outperform us. Many teenagers under the age of sixteen would make better
drivers than their parents, many young children are far more aware of
international politics than are their parents, and quite frankly, there
are
many seven year olds who would make much better decisions in life than
many
adults do.
There is unfortunately no shortage of examples of adults who drown
hopelessly in debt by living well beyond their means, destroy their family
lives with extramarital affairs, or throw their careers away as the result
of problems with alcohol. Yet our society gives even these types of
individuals full sovereignty over the lives of their children, even when
these children would probably be much more capable at running the family
than their parents.
In fact, children have an advantage over the rest of society in many ways.
They are far better at learning new skills and better at analytical
reasoning. They also tend to be far more creative and open minded. These
attributes tend to become far less keen as people grow older. This can be
seen in many daily examples, such as the fact that parents often have to
ask
their children for help when learning how to operate their computers.
The sad thing about our current state of affairs is not just that a large
segment of our population has its rights and freedoms systematically
denied,
but the fact that our society is routinely denied the contributions of
those
citizens who potentially have the most to contribute.
-------------------------------------------
I placed a copy of this article on my web site at:
http://ar.vegnews.org/children.html
Please feel free to post this message to other discussion groups or
mailing lists.
If you liked this article, please visit my other web sites:
Animal Rights and Vegetarian Ethics
http://ar.vegnews.org
Objective Morality
http://ar.vegnews.org/morals.html
Why children should rebel
by [email protected] (Eugene) Aug 15, 2004 at 03:49 PM
Our current concept of childhood is a relatively recent invention.
Throughout most cultures throughout most of human history, individuals
today
referred to as "children" had the right to marry, serve in the army, and
even act as the head of state.
We can still see remnants of this in ceremonies such as Barmitzvah
celebrations practiced by those who follow the Old Testament, though the
true purpose of such events has been obscured by today's society. In the
Judeo-Christian culture, boys who reached the age of 13 were considered to
be full fledged adults, with all the associated rights and
responsibilities.
This is a far cry from today's attitudes and practices, where even
individuals considerably older than 13 are still not allowed to own
property
in their own name, enter legal agreements, or have any significant
decision
making power over how they are to live their lives. Instead, they are
entirely at the almost arbitrary mercy of their parents or legal
guardians.
This situation is similar to the subordinate legal status women had to
their
husbands just a few generations ago. It is in effect a form of slavery,
though under the supposed belief that this is in the best interest of
those
who are enslaved. It was only in 1920 that women finally gained the right
to
vote in the United States. Prior to this date, it was considered
outrageous
to propose that these "irrational creatures" could be trusted to have a
say
in governance.
In exactly the same way, most people currently assume that children are
not
intellectually or emotionally competent to act as our equals in society.
This view is reflected in our language when people tell each other to
start
"behaving like adults."
However, a few moments reflection should make us realize that "typical
adult
behavior" consists of resolving our disputes through military
confrontations
and through bitter lawsuits. Nothing in our daily behavior is in any way
superior to the behavior of those we refer to as "children."
The very definition of what it means to be an "adult" has been warped by
our
society. When we refer to an "adult horse" or an "adult dog", the word
"adult" refers to the reproductive maturity of being able to produce
offspring. By contrast, our society's legal definition is based on an
arbitrary age demarcation, long after biological adulthood has already
been
attained.
Neither biological adulthood nor legal adulthood are a prerequisite for
intellectually or emotional maturity. Nor are they a guarantee of it. Some
people are competent to make their own decisions by the age of seven.
Others
are still not able to run their own lives even by the age of thirty.
Just as racism is unacceptable, it is also unacceptable to use arbitrary
age
demarcation lines to determine who will have which rights.
Consider for example the right to drive a car. We obviously need tests to
determine who can be trusted with this responsibility. However, to be
fair,
the same test must apply to all people, regardless of race or gender, and
regardless of youth. If someone successfully passes the written exam and
the
"behind the wheel" test, then there is no justification to deny a driving
license on the grounds that the applicant is too young.
The same principle can be applied to all other areas of life. There is
indeed a real need for limitations. For example, newborn infants can not
be
trusted to make their own decisions. However, the point in time at which
people are given various rights and responsibilities must be decided by
fair
and objective tests, not by arbitrary age demarcation.
If a five year old child born in the United States can pass the same test
immigrants take to attain citizenship, then this child should be given the
right to vote just as all other Americans. If a six year old child can
pass
a test demonstrating that he is aware of all the consequences of the
issues
involved, then he should be allowed to determine who he will live with and
where he will go to school. If a seven year old child can pass a test
demonstrating that he has the intellectual fortitude to make his own
decisions in life, then he should be given the full right to determine the
course of his own destiny.
Although no child should ever be forced to take these tests against his
will, these tests should always be made available to any child who wishes
to
take them.
Of course, there are many people who doubt that any child this young can
pass such tests. However, this is not the issue. Even if we were to
believe
that no child will ever pass these tests, we should not deny them the
right
to just "take the test" simply because they are too young.
If our skeptical predications are correct, and no child ever passes these
tests, then no harm has been done, since no child will have attained these
freedoms. If only one in a million passes this test, then nothing will
have
changed for the over 99% percent of the children who did not pass, but we
should not restrict the rights of this one child who did pass simply
because
of the poor performance of his peers.
There is a reason why we are reluctant to allow children to demonstrate
their competence through such tests. It is the fear that they will
outperform us. Many teenagers under the age of sixteen would make better
drivers than their parents, many young children are far more aware of
international politics than are their parents, and quite frankly, there
are
many seven year olds who would make much better decisions in life than
many
adults do.
There is unfortunately no shortage of examples of adults who drown
hopelessly in debt by living well beyond their means, destroy their family
lives with extramarital affairs, or throw their careers away as the result
of problems with alcohol. Yet our society gives even these types of
individuals full sovereignty over the lives of their children, even when
these children would probably be much more capable at running the family
than their parents.
In fact, children have an advantage over the rest of society in many ways.
They are far better at learning new skills and better at analytical
reasoning. They also tend to be far more creative and open minded. These
attributes tend to become far less keen as people grow older. This can be
seen in many daily examples, such as the fact that parents often have to
ask
their children for help when learning how to operate their computers.
The sad thing about our current state of affairs is not just that a large
segment of our population has its rights and freedoms systematically
denied,
but the fact that our society is routinely denied the contributions of
those
citizens who potentially have the most to contribute.
-------------------------------------------
I placed a copy of this article on my web site at:
http://ar.vegnews.org/children.html
Please feel free to post this message to other discussion groups or
mailing lists.
If you liked this article, please visit my other web sites:
Animal Rights and Vegetarian Ethics
http://ar.vegnews.org
Objective Morality
http://ar.vegnews.org/morals.html
Comment