Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Why children shouldn't have equal rights

Why children shouldn't have equal rights Why children shouldn't have equal rights LAURA M. PURDY Faculty of Philosophy, Wells college, Aurora, U.S.A. One might wonder why, now in this day, anybody would bother arguing against children's liberation (from now on, CL).' After all, liberation doesn't seem like a very pressing problem at a time when millions of children do not have enough to eat, suffer from easily avoidable diseases, work instead of learn, sell their bodies on the street for food or drugs, or, in richer milieux, are left far too often to their own devices. Why indeed? To see why CL is not a good idea, it is necessary first to under- stand its basic thesis. CL argues that both tradition and law distinguish between children and adults. Although some distinctions provide children with pro- tections not enjoyed by adults, they often come at the cost of freedom for children. Both protection and limits are justified by the claim that there are morally relevant differences between children and adults. CL denies those differences and holds that additional limits on children are oppressive and should be abolished. Hence children and adults should have the same basic rights.' Objecting to equal rights for children does http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The International Journal of Children's Rights Brill

Why children shouldn't have equal rights

Download PDF
19 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/why-children-shouldn-t-have-equal-rights-KlrKqZUBcP

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1994 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0927-5568
eISSN
1571-8182
DOI
10.1163/157181894X00150
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Why children shouldn't have equal rights LAURA M. PURDY Faculty of Philosophy, Wells college, Aurora, U.S.A. One might wonder why, now in this day, anybody would bother arguing against children's liberation (from now on, CL).' After all, liberation doesn't seem like a very pressing problem at a time when millions of children do not have enough to eat, suffer from easily avoidable diseases, work instead of learn, sell their bodies on the street for food or drugs, or, in richer milieux, are left far too often to their own devices. Why indeed? To see why CL is not a good idea, it is necessary first to under- stand its basic thesis. CL argues that both tradition and law distinguish between children and adults. Although some distinctions provide children with pro- tections not enjoyed by adults, they often come at the cost of freedom for children. Both protection and limits are justified by the claim that there are morally relevant differences between children and adults. CL denies those differences and holds that additional limits on children are oppressive and should be abolished. Hence children and adults should have the same basic rights.' Objecting to equal rights for children does

Journal

The International Journal of Children's Rights – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1994

There are no references for this article.