We touched a little on this in class on Tuesday, but I want to talk about the responsibility that Locke assigns to the parents in the Commonwealth. We discussed in class how Locke says that it is the parents' role to guide and regulate their children until they are old enough. It is the parents' jobs to teach their children reason. Locke says that the children should be under the rule and supervision of the parents until they are able to understand and follow the laws of the Commonwealth with reason. Their reason must be properly developed before they are released from the control of their parents. I find it interesting that Locke assigns this amount of responsibility solely to the parents. The role of the parents in the raising of a child is a subject that people still stress today. I agree with Locke that the parents should take responsibility and be in charge for the education of their children, but I also know that is doesn't always work out that way.
I am curious to know what Locke would say about the irresponsible or ignorant parents. These would be the parents that may lack reason and knowledge themselves and are incapable of properly educating their child. There are also those cases when the parents don't play a strong role in their children's lives and don't take responsibility for their upbringing. It is incorrect to assume that all parents are able to teach their children the knowledge they need as adults in the Commonwealth. In many cases, children don't receive this eduation from their parents. There are some that may niot even receive this education through school or the community. Many children just slip through the cracks. They have no type of parental role model in their lives. There is no one to teach them and control them until they have developed reason of their own. How would Locke address these kinds of cases?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is honestly a really great question. I know that Locke has come up with this idea of the age of reason in which children/teenagers are ready to leave the nest if you will and take responsibility for their actions. Once they reach this age of reason their parents are no longer supposed to be guiding and protecting them as strongly as they once did. This makes for a sticky situation however, to determine exactly when that age of reason is, considering, like you said, some parents are just not good teachers, and as a result, their children lack the judgement and reason they should have already acquired. I would have to say though that it is less of Lockes problem, and more of the governments. What I mean is that the government determines an exact age, 18, in which we are legal adults and have reached this age of reason. So not only, as you said, is it unfair for some children who have parents that aren't guiding them as they should be, but it is also brings law into the mix. Sure all kids should have a general sense of right and wrong, whether or not their parent is a good parent or not, but some 18 year olds do not know their rights, the laws of their community, etc. because of their ill-equipped parents.
ReplyDeleteI think that in today’s society, “parental power” doesn’t necessarily have to come from the parents. If a mother or father doesn’t have capacity to teach his or her child how to function within the common wealth, then the job often falls on an uncle or aunt, or on grandparents. If there are no family members capable of this task, foster care is needed. I think Locke would argue that it is the role of the commonwealth to insure that its members are able to function within it.
ReplyDeleteMary, the repeated emphasis in your opening sentence confuses me. Are you surprised that Jessie "honestly" posed a "really great question?"
ReplyDeleteRemember the thrust of the argument: It is true that Locke concedes the right of parents to their offspring on the basis of their right/duty to that which they have created. But this is not the unconditioned right/duty of property. Rather, it is the conditioned right/duty of a steward. Jessie's point is relevant for Locke regardless of the time or nation under consideration. To put it another way, parental duty qua stewards would seem to supersede their right over their children--thereby implying that the duty of the Commonwealth to its future citizens would overrule both the right- and the duty-claims of the parents.
ReplyDeleteBut this raises a further issue: what is the extent of the Commonwealth's role in this case? If the parents are deemed negligent according to some predetermined standard (which you touched on when you mention the arbitrary determinations of, e.g., age, with regard to "adulthood"), what must the Commonwealth do to rectify the situation? What is the basis of its jurisdiction?
-W.
I think that Locke would argue that the commonwealth has role in the development in all of its citizens insofar as they can all respect the property rights of others. The commonwealth has a duty to make sure its citizens are not so depressed/crazy that they harm themselves or others. This is why the state is required to provide education to its population. I would say that according to this reasoning, Locke would have to agree with some kind of public option for health care. The citizens of a commonwealth are unable to provide health care for themselves, are they (these citizens) not allowing their bodies (and thus their property) to be needlessly destroyed? Since the commonwealth has been constructed for the sole purpose to defend the property of the citizens of the commonwealth, shouldn't it be that commonwealth's responsibility to provide health care if it can?
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Locke would agree with the idea that the Commonwealth should serve as stewards to the children in these cases. Commonwealth is responsible for establishing and executing the laws of the state. The stewards or the parents should take responsibility in the educating of natural law and reason. Technically, they don't have the power to over take the role of the parents. This is beyond their jurisdiction. Locke would say that these parents and children that lack reason should never alone in the Commonwealth. They lack the reason to understand the laws, so they must always be under the supervision of a steward. He fails to explain who the steward would be in these cases. Today, the steward would be a member of the Commonwealth like a teacher, social worker, or some type of government worker. I don't think these people would fit in Locke's model.
ReplyDeleteI think Locke would agree that some kind of social worker, appointed by the government of the commonwealth should aid in the instruction of a child whose parents are unable to teach him or her reason, at least insofar as he or she can understand Locke's idea of property. A citizen who did not understand these laws would be threat to everyone's property. How is the government of the commonwealth not responsible for this defense of everyone's property?
ReplyDelete"any one comes not to such a degree of reason wherein he might be supposed capable of knowing the law, and so living within the rules of it, he is never capable of being a free man, he is never let loose to the disposure of his own will". Clearly Locke thinks that these people shouldn't be procreating in the first place. If they have offspring however, I agree with Ben in that it lies on the duty of the government to bring these children to a point in which they can join the common-wealth.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys think about a public option for health care?
ReplyDelete