| | Alec,
The position I'm trying to take comes from my thinking that children are individuals and ought therefore to have a right not to be assaulted. I think (or at least hope) that all of us here would agree with that. The difference is that most of you seem to assert that parents have some sort of exemption simply because parents may need to hit a child in order to discipline him - as as best I can see all anyone has really done is asserted that (and thrown in a few insults, which of course prove absolutely nothing about their position). On the other hand there's been a huge amount of evidence presented here that that isn't the case, and that the psychological effecting corporal punishment can have on children actually make it undesirable - which to me reinforces the idea that children should have some right against having this done to them. In my "ideal scenario" the'd be no legal exemption for parents, everyone would understand why and not resort to hitting. David insisted he would do so in any case if he thought it necessary as a last resort. I concede (not "hope") that the law would be unenforceable in that situation where in effect no physical harm is done to the child.
So how could it be "objectively defined"? In all honesty I'm not sure. But nor do I think the "status quo" of parents in effect having special rights with regard to a child is really defensible from an Objectivist standpoint, and nor have I seen much of an attempt at defending it on this thread. (That's something I see as distinct from the parents being able to effectively exercise certain rights on the child's behalf, and in the child's interest - which would cover something like for instance restraining them if they're about to run in front of oncoming traffic.)
So, in short Alec, I need to do a little more thinking, and possibly adjust my position somewhat (might help if someone gave a constructive response to the above, but I won't hold my breath).
Cheers
MH
|
|
