Debates on the nature and justifiability of paternalism typically focus only on adults, sometimes presuming without argument that paternalism towards children is a non-issue or obviously justified. Debates on the moral and political status of children, in turn, rarely connect with the rich literature on paternalism. This chapter attempts to bridge this gap by exploring how issues that arise in the general debate on paternalism are relevant also for the benevolent interference with children. I survey and discuss various views and (...) argue for my own: that paternalism towards children is in most respects like paternalism towards adults and stands in the same need of justification, though such justification is more often forthcoming both because children are typically less prudent than adults and so benefit more from interference, and because, in some respects, interference is less harmful to them. (shrink)

Children are routinely treated paternalistically. There are good reasons for this. Children are quite vulnerable. They are ill-equipped to meet their most basic needs, due, in part, to deficiencies in practical and theoretical reasoning and in executing their wishes. Children’s motivations and perceptions are often not congruent with their best interests. Consequently, raising children involves facilitating their best interests synchronically and diachronically. In practice, this requires caregivers to (in some sense) manage a child’s daily life. If apposite, this management will (...) focus partly on a child’s well-being. To be ably executed, an account of children’s well-being will need to be articulated. This chapter focuses on the nature of children’s well-being. It has five sections. The first section clarifies the focus. The second section examines some hurdles to articulating a view of children’s well-being. The third section evaluates some accounts of children’s well-being. The fourth section addresses the view that children possess features essential to them that make their lives on balance prudentially bad for them. The fifth section sums things up. (shrink)

Almost everyone accepts that parents must provide a good enough upbringing in order to retain custodial rights over children, but little has been said about how that level should be set. In this paper, I examine ways of specifying a good enough upbringing. I argue that the two dominant ways of setting this level, the Best Interests and Abuse and Neglect Views, are mistaken. I defend the Dual Comparative View, which holds that an upbringing is good enough when shortfalls from (...) the best alternative upbringing in terms of the child's interests are no more significant than the parents' interest. (shrink)

This paper aims to offer conceptual clarification on the use of the concept of human flourishing with regard to children. We will argue that the concept can meaningfully be applied to parts of human lives, specifically one's childhood, and discuss when we can meaningfully speak of a flourishing child. Viewing children's lives in terms of whether they are flourishing may be able to help us understand and articulate in which ways a child's life may go better or worse. This is (...) relevant, firstly, to the overall evaluation of people's lives, and secondly, because a flourishing childhood could be instrumentally necessary for adult flourishing. But, most importantly, childhood is a period of life that is good in itself irrespective of its contribution to adult flourishing, that is, being able to be a child has intrinsic goodness. Children have particular characteristics that can optimally function in childhood. While these contribute to the overall evaluation of a flourishing life, they are not regarded as valuable only because of this contribution. (shrink)

Interest in the nature and importance of ‘childhood goods’ recently has emerged within philosophy. Childhood goods, roughly, are things that are good for persons qua children independent of any contribution to the good of persons qua adults. According to Colin Macleod, John Rawls’s political conception of justice as fairness rests upon an adult-centered ‘agency assumption’ and thus is incapable of incorporating childhood goods into its content. Macleod concludes that because of this, justice as fairness cannot be regarded as a complete (...) conception of distributive justice. In this paper I provide a political liberal response to Macleod’s argument by advancing three claims. First, I propose that political liberalism should treat leisure time as a distinct ‘primary good.’ Second, I suggest that leisure time should be distributed via the ‘basic needs principle’ and the ‘difference principle’ for all citizens over the course of their complete lives, including their childhoods. Third, the provision of leisure time in this way supports the realization of childhood goods for citizens. (shrink)

This article provides a philosophical analysis of a putative right of the child to have their expressed views considered in matters that affect them. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 is an influential and interesting statement of that right. The article shows that the child’s ‘right to a voice’ is complex. Its complexity lies in the problem of contrasting an adult’s normative power of choice with a child’s weighted views, in the various (...) senses in which we might consider the child’s views, and in the questions of how to weight those views and how their weighting makes a practical difference in coming to a decision. In so doing we criticise other accounts that simply regard a child’s views as having consultative value. We also make better sense of how we might weight a child’s views. The philosophical issues addressed in the article carry implications for how we might understand Article 12 that are not satisfactorily identified and addressed in the voluminous literature on Article 12 within childhood studies. These issues also have implications for how we might understand the distinction between adults and children in respect of powers of personal choice. We conclude by emphasising the importance and value of the right that Article 12 seeks to formally identify. (shrink)

To what extent does the common claim that childhood is ‘socially constructed’ affect the ethical debate on the ‘intrinsic’ and ‘special’ goods of childhood? Philosophers have referred to this kind of goods in their critique of overly adult-centred and future-oriented conceptions of childhood. The view that some goods are child-specific, in the sense that they are only good for children, not for adults, seems to presuppose an understanding of what children ‘are’, and how they differ from adults. However, if the (...) social-constructionist view is accepted, it cannot be assumed that childhood is a given. This essay claims that the social-constructionist understanding of childhood does not undermine the debate on the moral status and the goods of childhood, but that nevertheless important lessons can be drawn from the insight that childhood, as we know it, is not a natural and universal phenomenon. (shrink)

This article presents the promising framework for educational decision makers developed by Brighouse, Ladd, Loeb, and Swift. The framework consists of an account of the educational goods, distributional principles and independent values at stake in education, and a method for making policy decisions on the basis of these and solid social science. I present three criticisms of this approach. The first says that the derivation of educational goods proceeds on the basis of a too narrow conception of values. I suggest (...) that this foundation should consist of an overlapping consensus, rather than flourishing. The second criticism has to do with the way that the distributive principles are characterized. I argue that BLLS’s characterization of distributive principles should be complemented with accounts of what domains of social life these principles regulate and a specification of whether the distributive principles should be understood as applying over time or at specific instances. The final criticism is that BLLS’s conception of independent values focuses solely on values that constrain the pursuit of educational goods. I claim that this part of the framework should be revised to include aspects of values that also support this pursuit. I conclude arguing that the BLLS frameworks should be further developed rather than rejected. (shrink)

In diesem Aufsatz vertrete ich die These, dass die Betreuungsverbote und einschränkungen für Kleinkinder, die im Zuge der Corona-Pandemie in Deutschland galten und immer noch gelten, in bestimmten Fällen zu signifikanten Verlusten des Wohlergehens von Kleinkindern führen. Dabei beziehe ich mich auf Kleinkinder, die in Strukturen leben, in denen die außerhäusliche Betreuung einen gewichtigen Beitrag zur Kinderbetreuung leistet. Ich werde dafür argumentieren, dass für diese Kinder der Wegfall der Kinderbetreuung bedeuten kann, dass gewichtige aktuelle immaterielle Wohlergehensinteressen nur noch teilweise oder (...) gar nicht mehr befriedigt werden. Um diese Interessen und das Ausmaß ihrer Nichtbefriedigung zu beschreiben, greife ich auf das Konzept der Kindheitsgüter zurück und werde mich dabei auf drei gewichtige immaterielle Wohlergehensinteressen konzentrieren: das Interesse des Kindes an pädagogisch wertvollen Betreuungsstrukturen, das Bedürfnis des Kindes nach Austausch und Spiel mit Gleichaltrigen und das Interesse des Kindes, frei von Sorgen und Ängsten zu sein. Die anschließende kinderethische Auswertung dreier aktueller Studien zur Situation der Kinder und Familien unter den Bedingungen der Corona-Pandemie zeigt, dass besonders die Umstände während des Lockdowns im Frühjahr 2020, aber auch die fortbestehenden Einschränkungen bei der Kinderbetreuung sowie die veränderte Arbeitssituation der Eltern erheblich dazu beitragen, dass das Wohlergehen von Kleinkindern in dieser Hinsicht beeinträchtigt wird. Am Ende des Aufsatzes werde ich mich der Frage widmen, was bei der Ausgestaltung zukünftiger Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Corona-Pandemie aus kinderethischer Perspektive berücksichtigt werden sollte, um das Wohlergehen der Kleinkinder so gut wie möglich zu schützen. (shrink)

Many consider play a natural part of childhood, and although there is disagreement in the literature on what essentially defines “play” in childhood, philosophical theories of play tend to support this initial consideration. But is childhood play also something we owe each other within a framework of educational justice? This is a question yet to be addressed. In this paper, I answer this question affirmatively. I take off from a generic account of educational justice and argue that childhood play should (...) be considered a central entitlement of this account. I then argue in line with the capability approach that if we ought to protect childhood play, it should be children’s capability for play rather than the functioning of play that needs protection. I end by offering an account of the capability for childhood play. (shrink)

Progressive family policy regimes typically aim to promote and protect women’s opportunities to participate in the workforce. These policies offer significant benefits to affluent, two-parent households. A disproportionate number of low-income and impoverished families, however, are headed by single mothers. How responsive are such policies to the objectives of these mothers and the needs of their children? This chapter argues that one-size-fits-all family policy regimes often fail the most vulnerable household and contribute to intergenerational poverty in two ways: by denying (...) at-risk children adequate parenting, and by undermining their mothers’ legitimate interest in nurturing and caring for their own children. The capabilities of these mothers and the well-being of their children are better served by policies which recognise maternal caregiving as a productive and valuable occupation meriting equal respect and social support. (shrink)

A lot of talented children aspire to be professional athletes. They spend many hours each week practicing and competing in the hope of achieving this. To what extent should a parent permit, encourage or even force them to do so? Professional sporting success provides substantial goods and rewards. However, trying to achieve it imposes many costs on children, such as the diminishment of important childhood goods. I argue that these costs outweigh the potential rewards, especially given the improbability of success, (...) and so parents should not try to maximise their children’s talents for professional success. I also show that how one weighs up the costs and rewards depends on one’s conception of childhood. Finally, I suggest that parents, qua member of society, may well have good reason to maximise their child’s talent, given the social benefits talent maximisation provides. I conclude by arguing that this does not outweigh parents’ duty to provide a good childhood for their children, which talent maximisation undermines. (shrink)

Philosophers disagree about what precisely makes an act paternalistic, and about whether, when, and why paternalistic acts are morally objectionable. Despite these disagreements, it might seem uncontroversial to think that it is permissible to paternalize children. When paternalism seems morally objectionable, that is usually because an adult has been treated in a way that seems appropriate only for children. But, we might think, there can be nothing morally objectionable about treating children as children. In this paper, however, I argue that (...) there are limits to how we may permissibly paternalize children. I begin in Section 1 by describing and endorsing Jonathan Quong’s account of paternalism, which defines paternalistic acts as those that involve particular kinds of judgments that the paternalizer makes about the capacities of the paternalizee. In Section 2, I identify a distinction between two kinds of paternalism: ‘compensatory’ paternalism, and ‘non-compensatory’ paternalism. In Section 3, I argue that compensatory paternalism is usually permissible in the case of children. In section 4, I argue that non-compensatory paternalism is much harder to justify than compensatory paternalism, and because of this, it is sometimes impermissible even when directed at children. (shrink)

A lot of talented children aspire to be professional athletes. They spend many hours each week practicing and competing in the hope of achieving this. To what extent should a parent permit, encourage or even force them to do so? Professional sporting success provides substantial goods and rewards. However, trying to achieve it imposes many costs on children, such as the diminishment of important childhood goods. I argue that these costs outweigh the potential rewards, especially given the improbability of success, (...) and so parents should not try to maximise their children’s talents for professional success. I also show that how one weighs up the costs and rewards depends on one’s conception of childhood. Finally, I suggest that parents, qua member of society, may well have good reason to maximise their child’s talent, given the social benefits talent maximisation provides. I conclude by arguing that this does not outweigh parents’ duty to provide a good childhood for their children, which talent maximisation undermines. (shrink)

The family disrupts equality while also, think many, providing goods of unique value. In Family Values, Brighouse and Swift tackle both of these tendencies, offering a refined and distinctive liberal egalitarian account both of the value of family life, and the limits of what may be done in its name. It builds up from an account of children's specific interests to a defence of ‘familial relationship goods’ as providing the best way of satisfying those interests. Thus though parenthood carries goods (...) of its own, parental prerogatives are delimited by what is good for children. The position which emerges plays out in nuanced, sometimes surprising ways. I raise three main lines of potential criticism, concerning, respectively, the distribution of family relationship goods, their value in relation to fair equality of opportunity, and the viability of distinguishing between family-located and other contributions to the realisation of a child's interests. (shrink)

Beschäftigt man sich systematisch mit der Konzeption von Gerechtigkeit für Kinder bzw. während der Kindheit, ist es hilfreich, drei verschiedene Fragen zu klären, die normalerweise in Hinblick auf Erwachsene diskutiert werden, doch auch für eine genauere Analyse der Ansprüche von Kindern relevant sind. Welche Güter sind für die Gerechtigkeitstheorie relevant? Nach welchen Prinzipien sollen diese Güter verteilt werden? Wer ist dafür verantwortlich, dass die angestrebte Güterverteilung verwirklicht wird? In dieser Einleitung umreißen wir kurz den gegenwärtigen Diskussionsstand, der in diesen drei (...) großen gerechtigkeitsrelevanten Themenfeldern hinsichtlich von Kindern besteht. Zunächst analysieren wir Ressourcen und Fähigkeiten als angemessene Metrik der Gerechtigkeit für Kinder. Hinsichtlich der Verteilungsprinzipien lassen sich vor allem egalitäre und suffizienztheoretische Herangehensweisen unterscheiden. Schließlich werden in Bezug auf die Frage nach den relevanten „Akteuren der Gerechtigkeit“ für Kinder hauptsächlich die Familie bzw. die Eltern und der Staat diskutiert. (shrink)

We gratefully reply to our five commentators, responding to their criticisms and comments under the following headings: parochialism and curriculum; rationality and truth; production and distribution; perfectionism, decision-making and disagreement; adultism and parents' interests; non-consequential educational goods; and self-education.

Thema dieses Essays sind Fragen nach dem Verhältnis theoriegeleiteter empirischer Forschung und systematischer Analyse, Rekonstruktion und Bewertung von in pädagogischen Konstellationen unweigerlich auftretenden ethischen Fragestellungen und Problemen. Ziel des Beitrags ist es, am Beispiel von aktuellen bildungstheoretischen Debatten über den normativen Gehalt des Bildungsbegriffs Möglichkeiten des Umgangs mit einigen der zentralen methodologischen Herausforderungen einer sozialwissenschaftlich informierten und anwendungsorientierten Ethik zu skizzieren. Dabei wird nicht beansprucht, die entsprechenden Fragen abschließend zu klären, sondern es werden am Beispiel von Problemvorgaben einer Ethik der (...) Bildung Wege und Perspektiven der Argumentation und Analyse sondiert, die bis dato insbesondere in der deutschsprachigen Erziehungs- und Bildungsphilosophie eher unterrepräsentiert sind. Zu diesem Zweck werde ich zunächst grundsätzliche Fragen zur Ein- und Abgrenzung der Zuständigkeit, des Anwendungsbereichs und der Aufgaben Pädagogischer Ethik diskutieren, um sodann in kritischer Absicht aktuelle Probleme mit ethischen Positionierungen im Rahmen erziehungsund bildungswissenschaftlicher Forschung darzulegen. Darauf aufbauend werde ich am Beispiel der Kontroverse über die normativen Grundlagen von Kollers transformatorischer Bildungstheorie methodologische Probleme einer Ethik der Bildung analysieren, die sich auf das Verhältnis von theoretischer Konzeptualisierung und der empirischen Rekonstruktion von Einzelfällen und ihrer ethischen Bewertung beziehen. Abschließend werde ich aus einer allgemeineren Perspektive Möglichkeiten, Probleme und Herausforderungen einer empirisch informierten Pädagogischen Ethik vorstellen. (shrink)