Do parents have a moral obligation to protect their children? What does that mean? Protect from what?
A recent video went viral of an Asian man sending his 4-year-old son out into the cold snow of New York in only his underwear and shoes. The boy was borne with several health problems and the parents have learned from their cultural tradition that sickly children can be made stronger through exposure to physical challenge. This experience, which the boy clearly did not enjoy, was one of several methods to improve his strength and immune system.
The question some ask is if this should be characterized as child abuse subject to the punishment of the law.
Is it? Or is it a cultural practice that has wisdom in tradition.
One commentator, a member of a child protection advocacy group "When a child is cold that's a parent's responsibility to keep them warm." This is a statement of morality.
To read more, click here.
What does everyone think?
While sympathetic to the child advocate's position, claiming it is a parent's responsibility to keep children warm seems -- at least at first glance -- an untenable assertion.
ReplyDeleteWhat of parents who cannot afford heating bills or other necessities as a result of economic hardship?
More to the point, drawing the lines for child abuse is a perilous task.
For example, each summer children -- not consenting adults -- are encouraged if not ordered by their parents to suit up for two-a-day high school football practices during extreme heat. The annual practice claims the lives of *multiple* children each and every summer. While I would like to see reforms, should parents be held liable?
Again, not to endorse the father's actions -- and especially not his whacked decision to post the video to the internet -- but don't they fall into a gray area that constitutes much of parenting?
Numerous exceptions -- specifically overt physical abuse -- surely exist, but unfortunately doesn't much of this judgment have to fall to after-the-fact conclusions rather than (treacherously ambiguous) preemptive action?
It seems we should at least make a distinction between different kinds of failing in the responsibility to keep a child warm. There's an obvious difference between putting a kid out in the cold when you need not do so and being unable to keep the heat on in the house (though many, if not most areas in the US have laws against cutting off heat in the winter).
DeleteThere would still be some potentially grey areas - such as whether we ought to defer to the parents' belief here that putting the child out in the cold would toughen him up. Or, e.g., whether we should assimilate the case of a parent who spends money on other non-necessities rather than nutritious food or heating bills to the case of a parent who is through no fault unable to keep the heat on or to the case of the parent who is willfully negligent.
Part of the issue with the definition of 'abuse,' though ties back to the general one of how far the family should be shielded from state intervention. If the family is an absolute law-free zone, then you open up possibilities for all sorts of abuse. But the further you go the other way, the more you step on the toes of people whose views about parenting deviate from the mainstream.
DeleteIt is interesting, we talked about the issue of categorizing abuse in my Policy Analysis class last night and I didn't think until rereading this post and now the comments of the ethics involved in that decisions of categorization. It was only a matter of accuracy and precise definitions. I have more thoughts on this, but I need sleep more than philosophizing right now!
ReplyDeleteI haven't thought about the issue of child abuse enough to comment on it's definition, but "When a child is cold that's a parent's responsibility to keep them warm." seems to be not only oversimplified by also wrong in a significant way. Sure, an infant should be kept warm if possible, but I would suggest that excessively sheltering a child can be as degrading as mild forms of abuse. It is similar to saying, "when a child is sad it is the parent's responsibility to keep them happy." This is not unequivocally true either. It is bad parenting to raise a child to be incapable of dealing with less pleasant emotions, or one who cannot find solace except in the comforting arms of his/her parent. Granted, this is rooted in the culture I grew up in, which values individuality and independence so much, but I would expect this to apply at least in some way to every parent.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, if a child feels afraid and confused when he/she is simply experiencing cold when a parent is not around, then there is a certain sense that the parent is not doing their job well. It is the parents responsibility to provide security (e.g. shelter, unconditional love) and teach a child the value of interpersonal compassion, but it is also their responsibility to cultivate a capable and self-sufficient individual.
To bring this back to Jessica's inquiry, what place might sheltering have in reference to abuse? Sheltering a child is sort of the opposite of neglect, and yet it seems comparable with regard to it's negative effects on a child's dignity. What do you think?
I don't know, man, are we seriously pretending that we can't tell the difference between "a parent should take reasonable steps to ensure that the child won't be extremely cold," and "a parent should ensure that the child never experiences any even slight variation from the temperature of a warm bath?"
DeleteI'll grant that some kinds of things may be in a "tough love" gray area, and it sounds like there's some context at least to this particular video. But it strikes me as disingenuous to approach it as if once we say parents shouldn't force their kids to run half-naked through the snow the next step will be making everyone wrap their children in bubble-wrap for safekeeping.