UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Political basis for child-raising Grant, Michael 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A8 G74.pdf [ 6.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0228301.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0228301-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0228301-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0228301-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0228301-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0228301-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0228301-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0228301-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0228301.ris

Full Text

POLITICAL BASIS FOR CHILD-RAISING  by  MICHAEL GRANT B. A., UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1965  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION Department o f S o c i a l and E d u c a t i o n a l Studies  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1984  (c) Michael Grant, 1984  In  presenting  this  thesis  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,  I  available  for  permission purposes or  her  agree  that  the  Library  reference  and  study.  for may  extensive  I  of  this  It  thesis  is  for  understood financial  permission.  Department o f SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL STUDIES  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T  further  it  freely  agree t h a t  be granted by the head of my department or by h i s  allowed without my w r i t t e n  The  make  copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y  representatives.  publication  shall  1W5  Date: October 15, 1984  t h a t copying or gain s h a l l not be  ABSTRACT A for  political his  which  society  can  within  be  does  child-raising  among  for  child-raising.  our  society.  not  include  the  general Since  social  determining This thesis  principles  arrangements.  our  social  arrangements  a  of  Yet the  arrangements  i s an attempt t o i n t e r p r e t  for  some of  i n such a way t h a t they can a l s o  f o r c h i l d - r a i s i n g w i t h i n the context of  the v a r i o u s systems of p r i n c i p l e s differ  in  o f the i n d i v i d u a l  common  opportunity paths  s o c i a l arrangements f o r  society.  relationship locate  the  i t s necessary  philosophical principles as  I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o imagine a  arrangements f o r our North American s o c i e t y are not  sufficient  act  principles  proposed by v a r i o u s p h i l o s o p h e r s i n j u s t i f i c a t i o n of  social  those  for providing  a p p l i e d t o a l l the necessary s o c i a l arrangements  which  principles  developing a j u s t i f i c a t o r y system  has a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  h i s particular  society  the  philosopher  to the  reference the  the  way  used t o j u s t i f y our that  they t r e a t the  t o the group, i t i s necessary t o  point,  that  of  the endowment o f  c h i l d , and then proceed along the s e l e c t e d  argument t o d e r i v e a v a l i d s e t o f p r i n c i p l e s f o r  child-raising. The  preliminary  requirements society's  of  a  stage  is  an  system  of  justificatory  institutions.  examination  of the general principles  fora  The p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h i e s of Robert  Nozick and John Rawls are then examined t o determine the l i m i t s  placed  on i n t e r f e r e n c e with the c h i l d and c h i l d - r a i s e r f o r those  i n the Conservative and L i b e r a l P o s i t i o n s . The from  action-guiding  these  reasonably However  close  the  Positions our  two  of  positions, to  our  differences  when  taken together,  to  appear t o be  commonsense notion of c h i l d - r a i s i n g . between  the Conservative and L i b e r a l  are the cause of some of the tensions  attempts  source  p r i n c i p l e s f o r c h i l d - r a i s i n g which emerge  establish  policy.  that develop i n  These d i f f e r e n c e s are the  the value c o n f l i c t s which a r i s e when we are endowing  c h i l d r e n with  opportunities.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  i i  Introduction Chapter One:  1 J u s t i f y i n g Child-Raising Institutions  3  1.1.  Necessity  of C h i l d - R a i s i n g  3  1.2.  Necessity  of J u s t i f i c a t o r y Systems  5  1.3.  Secondary J u s t i f i c a t o r y Systems  7  1.4.  F i r s t Requirements of Systems  9  1.5.  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of C h i l d - R a i s i n g  12  1.6.  Participants  13  1.7.  Ennis' A n a l y s i s  18  1.8.  Conclusion  23  Chapter Two:  L i b e r a l and  Conservative  Positions  30  2.1.  Relevant Aspects of P o l i t i c a l Philosophy  30  2.2.  Ennis'  31  2.3.  Paradigm Conservative  2.4.  L i b e r a l P o s i t i o n from Rawls  40  2.5.  Comparison of P o s i t i o n s  46  2.6.  Reconsideration  49  Chapter Three:  Conservative  and L i b e r a l P o s i t i o n s - Nozick  of Relevant Aspects  C h i l d - R a i s i n g Under Nozick  33  56  3.1.  Focus of A n a l y s i s of Nozick  56  3.2.  Nozick's Worrisome Points  59  3.3.  H i s t o r y and Fable  61  3.4.  Misallocations  66  3.5.  Adjustment Clause  70  iv  3.6.  Joining  Up  74  3.6.1.  Payback  3.6.2.  S e l l i n g the  3.6.3.  Paternalistic-Like Child-Raising  3.7.  , Great C o r p o r a t i o n  Nozick Summarized  Chapter Four:  The  75 76 79 82  Well-Ordered S o c i e t y  90  4.1.  Rawls - More or Less Than Nozick  90  4.2.  S o c i a l Union  94  4.3.  P r i o r i t y to I n t e r f e r e  97  4.4.  L i b e r a l Paternalism  99  4.4.1.  The  4.4.2.  Application  4.4.3.  P r i n c i p l e s of J u s t i c e  102  4.5.  R a t i o n a l i t y Requirements  104  4.6.  J u s t i f i e d Interference  106  4.7.  Rawls Summarized  111  Chapter F i v e  Principles  Limits  99  of the  Principles  100  of I n t e r f e r e n c e  117  Funnel of Childhood"  117  5.1.  "The  5.2.  S o c i a l Arrangements  119  5.3.  The  Lower L i m i t s  from Nozick  122  5.4.  The  Upper L i m i t s  from Rawls  124  5.5.  Positional Prohibitions  126  5.5.1.  Conservative Child-Raisers  126  5.5.2.  L i b e r a l Child-Raisers  128  v  5.6.  Combinations o f P o s i t i o n s  129  5.6.1.  Endowing with Opportunity  129  5.6.2.  The Combinations  130  Bibliography  134  vi  INTRODUCTION  I t i s my c o n t e n t i o n that any i n t e r f e r e n c e with t h e i r which c h i l d r e n be  justifiable  principles My  experience while being r a i s e d in  the  same  terms  from childhood must  and a c c o r d i n g t o the same  as those which apply t o a l l persons o f t h e i r  position  requires  that  to  be  complete  any  j u s t i f i c a t i o n of s o c i a l arrangements must i n c l u d e However,  theorists  society's the  basic,  premise  exempt  children  example,  In  consideration justificatory  is  differences  my  i n being a c h i l d  under the system they are  w i t h i n the context o f many i n d i v i d u a l s . to  which  eliminate  any  within  the  justificatory  It is  restrictions  omit persons such as c h i l d r e n  on  from equal  system.)  I f the  system i s intended t o j u s t i f y s o c i a l arrangements i t must do t h a t f o r a l l i n d i v i d u a l s  may  be  system.  included  system, t h i s t h e s i s  arrangement of c h i l d - r a i s i n g characteristics,  They r e l y on  mind t h i s exemption begs the q u e s t i o n .  an incomplete or d e f i c i e n t  justificatory  as one of  i n our s o c i e t y we wish t o preserve the i n t e g r i t y  individuals  child-raising  systematic  child-raising  inherent  society.  child-raising.  s o c i a l arrangements.  consideration  necessary  'individuality'  involving  the from  of the i n d i v i d u a l therefore  have f a i l e d t o t r e a t integral,  that  investigating. (For  freedom  and,  or i t  In order t o f i n d out how as  will  part  of  a  complete  f i r s t examine the s o c i a l  i n order t o determine i t s p e r t i n e n t  secondly,  consider  two  political  p h i l o s o p h i e s which taken together i n c l u d e many of the p r i n c i p l e s which we use t o j u s t i f y our s o c i a l arrangements.  1  The for  first  an  chapter i n v e s t i g a t e s the b a s i s f o r the parameters  investigation  arrangements  required  establishes but  each  Nozick  next  position  and  two to  Liberal  positions.  -  I  Two  complete  There i s a g e n e r a l  the C o n s e r v a t i v e as presented by  use  the  In  parameters from the f i r s t  probe the p r o b l e m a t i c areas of the C o n s e r v a t i v e and The f i n a l chapter compares the conceptions  c h i l d - r a i s i n g t h a t can be d e r i v e d from each of the p o l i t i c a l  positions consider  w i t h our commonsense n o t i o n o f c h i l d - r a i s i n g . the  Conservative  possibility position  purpose  child-raising notions.  of which  The  verification are  Chapter  the L i b e r a l as presented by John Rawls.  chapters  chapter  the  child-raising.  the b a s i s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g two a p p a r e n t l y  of  Robert  of  for  d i f f e r e n t systems of general p r i n c i p l e s .  outline  the  of a j u s t i f i c a t o r y system f o r the s o c i a l  directly  I also  of combining the p r i n c i p l e s from the  w i t h those from the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n f o r establishing  social  more  approximate our commonsense  closely  arrangements  for  upshot o f t h i s combination of p r i n c i p l e s i s the  of  my c o n t e n t i o n t h a t p r i n c i p l e s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g  derivable  s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l  from  principles  arrangements.  2  used  t o j u s t i f y our  CHAPTER ONE  JUSTIFYING CHILD-RAISING INSTITUTIONS  1.1.  N e c e s s i t y of C h i l d - R a i s i n g In  in  this  my  chapter I w i l l e s t a b l i s h  consideration  of  the parameters  justificatory  I w i l l use  systems  f o r the  i n s t i t u t i o n s which are necessary f o r the reasonable o p e r a t i o n of social  groups.  arrangements emerge  Since  required  It  i s my  between  the  principles  for child-raising,  contention  occurs.  demonstrate of  arrangements  are  child-raising  that  between  will  child-raising, nature of  t h a t there i s a necessary connection required  by  child-raising  and the  in  and  who  find  are  exist  aware  within  Before proceeding with my argument I  the  actions  justificatory  of  child-raising  arguments  themselves  necessary.  children,  themselves  The importance of carried  i s r e l a t i v e l y easy t o e s t a b l i s h . involved  of two t h i n g s . the  and the  t o guide our s o c i a l  o f some form o f r e s t r i c t i v e a c t i o n s ,  out i n order t o r a i s e  children  these parameters  used t o j u s t i f y the s o c i a l arrangements w i t h i n which  child-raising  Persons  i s with the s o c i a l  principles.  interferences  establishment  they  concern  s o c i a l arrangements, and the d i s t r i b u t i v e  the j u s t i f i c a t o r y  must  prime  from c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p  the e x i s t i n g  the  my  context  of  i n the task of r a i s i n g  First,  they are aware that  some s o c i a l arrangements.  Second, they are aware t h a t the c h i l d they are r a i s i n g w i l l 3  also  exist  within  future  the  social  entirely child  While  foreseen,  pressure  exerted  be  they  must  involved  context  of  persons  continue  children  related  to  the present  do not n e c e s s a r i l y b e l i e v e  b e l i e v e t h a t they can shape the  to  possible  to  do so. a  is  of  the  anticipated  social  t o be worthwhile the  must be worthwhile.  Since the  of  the  child-raiser,  involved  in  social  then as long as the  child-raising  he  arrangements.  child-raiser  to  If  will  be  i t i s not  anticipate  any  arrangement, then, unless he i s p e r v e r s e , he involved  in  child-raising.  I t i s therefore  t o conclude t h a t as long as there are c h i l d r e n  f o r by  be t o r a i s e  arrangement  prospective  become  arrangements  But the worthiness of the a c t i o n s o f  function  worthwhile  social  reasonable  s o c i a l arrangement they  o f f u t u r e s o c i a l arrangements i s a mental a c t i v i t y  for a  not  As long as  i t i s worthwhile t o shape  order f o r c h i l d - r a i s i n g  control  worthwhile  believe  f i t i n t o some a n t i c i p a t e d  social  anticipating  t o a l l o w them t o e x i s t w i t h i n the  that  In  child-raiser  there w i l l be a  to  arrangement.  the  raising children  s o c i a l arrangements.  are  anticipation  T h e r e f o r e , as long as persons  anticipated  child-raising  anticipated  in  on c h i l d r e n  some  continue  cared  child-raisers  s o c i a l arrangements. to  will  be  t o the extent necessary f o r the c h i l d t o e x i s t w i t h i n the  continue  under  will  These  the present or the f u t u r e s o c i a l arrangements can be  anticipated  will  o f some s o c i a l arrangements.  arrangements  arrangements. that e i t h e r  context  adults,  imposed  there  will  on the c h i l d r e n ,  those c h i l d r e n  i n a certain  be  some  special  the i n t e n t  being social  of which w i l l  way.  The o n l y reason f o r a s o c i a l group t o contemplate i t s s o c i a l 4  arrangements  beyond  the  ensure  i t s regeneration.  social  arrangements  influenced assume  that  anticipate be  of a  expectation  which  children  t h a t s o c i a l group.  are being r a i s e d i s  t h a t c h i l d - r a i s e r i s denying the s o c i a l group's  of  regeneration  as  s o c i a l arrangements.  simple  When a c h i l d - r a i s e r cannot  worthwhile f u t u r e arrangement i n t o which c h i l d r e n  child-raiser will a  into  the a n t i c i p a t e d arrangements are necessary f o r the  raised  existing  To the extent t h a t the form o f the  by the c h i l d - r a i s e r ' s s o c i a l group, i t i s p o s s i b l e t o  regeneration  can  l i f e - s p a n o f i t s l i v i n g members i s t o  well  as  the  worthiness o f  On the other hand, an o p t i m i s t i c  see f u t u r e s o c i a l arrangements as being e i t h e r  continuation  or a l o g i c a l improvement  structure.  A  arrangements  as being anything from a systematic improvement t o  a  dialectical  radical,  Whatever  the  structures, social  critical  the e x i s t e n c e  generation  condition be  child-raising  raised  of  will  the  see f u t u r e s o c i a l  existing  of a r e l a t i o n s h i p implies  to that by  structure.  between the e x i s t i n g and the f u t u r e  involving  f o r regeneration  sufficient,  change  relationship  regeneration  order  child-raiser  of the e x i s t i n g  at  occur some  least  some form o f  two g e n e r a t i o n s .  In  i t i s a necessary, but not o f the c h i l d r e n o f the e a r l y  c h i l d - r a i s e r s who are convinced  that  as shaping i s not only a worthwhile a c t i v i t y , but  a l s o an a c t i v i t y necessary f o r the e x i s t i n g s o c i a l group t o have meaning.  1.2.  Necessity The  of J u s t i f i c a t o r y Systems  necessity  justification  f o r the  establishment  of  some  system of  f o r the arrangements o f the s o c i a l group i s l e s s 5  obvious. to  There are two p o s s i b l e explanations  demonstrate  justificatory existence not  systems.  some  some  way;  inevitability The  first  attempts  explanation  to  establish  r e l i e s on the  k i n d o f a s s o c i a t i o n with other i n d i v i d u a l s , but  kind  of  reasons f o r a s s o c i a t i n g i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r  This explanation  beings  of  of a n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o s t r i v e f o r ,  only  also  the  which can be used  with  the  r e l i e s on the assumption t h a t humans are  capacity  for deliberative rationality.  human does not engage i n r a t i o n a l d e l i b e r a t i o n on every involving logical for  outcome  a  which  association of  rational result  necessary  other  humans.  i n human of  explanation  starts  However, i t i s a  f o r the b a s i s of the arrangements  associations. the  can  rational be  Furthermore, nature  the  of  i ti sa  humans that a  used t o j u s t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p  between the various human a s s o c i a t i o n s . someone  occasion  the r a t i o n a l nature of humans t h a t we seek  explanation  outcome  rational  with  Every  rational  task  Therefore the f a c t t h a t of  justifying  arrangements e s t a b l i s h e s the n e c e s s i t y o f the task  social  t o the extent  that i t i s r a t i o n a l . The  second  establish on  explanation  justificatory  of the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of attempts t o  systems f o r s o c i a l arrangements  relies  the premise t h a t humans s t r i v e t o improve t h e i r c o n d i t i o n t o  the  extent  rational then,  they  think p o s s i b l e .  deliberation  i f they  the b e n e f i t s a v a i l a b l e from  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a group, they w i l l  s t r i v e t o determine the most  case  to  produce the best p o s s i b l e answers,  maximize  reasonable  wish  will  I f humans are convinced t h a t  j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h e i r s o c i a l arrangements.  In the  where a j u s t i f i c a t i o n does not e x p l a i n the e x i s t i n g s o c i a l 6  arrangement other  1.3.  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s w i l l be  Secondary J u s t i f i c a t o r y It  appears  systems  for  that  an  justified.  In p a r t i c u l a r  child-raising  must  Systems  reliance  explanation  be  sought.  on of  superimposed  justificatory  s o c i a l arrangements cannot be  the s o c i a l arrangements r e q u i r e d  justifiable  i n the same terms as  for  other  s o c i a l arrangements. I  am  not  suggesting  t h a t there have not been attempts to  j u s t i f y the a c t i o n s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g . kinds. of  One  k i n d of e x p l a n a t i o n  discrete  children will  categories  are considered  of  has  In f a c t there are r e l i e d on the  persons.  In  to be so d i f f e r e n t  establishment  such  explanations  from the a d u l t s  become t h a t they belong to a d i f f e r e n t  t h e r e f o r e , are s u b j e c t to a set of j u s t i f i c a t o r y  who  only  assumes  a  stages,  the  to  clear  'different  well-ordered  theory  such  stages  is  in  lines  between  a  definitive  my  proliferation  of  categories  child  avoid  treating  refinement logical  of  stages  of  categories.  near  requires  extreme  theory  the  and  If  one  developmental justificatory  However, the b a s i s f o r  of c l e a r - c u t developmental  o p i n i o n not well-founded. the  of  category' kinds of d i s j o i n t  systems i s at l e a s t a p o s s i b l e approach. assuming  principles  persons t h a t are i n t h a t category.  cut,  they  category of persons  and,  apply  several  The  personhood The  l a c k of results  identification  clear in  of  the  a d u l t r e q u i r e s refinement i n order  adults further  i n the same way modification.  procedure  of  providing  as i n f a n t s . Carried  to  Each its  a justificatory  system f o r each category w i l l end up with a d i f f e r e n t 7  to  a  system f o r  each  individual,  since  category  of  their  striving  to  establish  justificatory  every  own.  individual  the  most  general  child-raising  of  relies  justification on  up  in a  inevitable  possible  system of  i t i s c l e a r that the p a r t i t i o n i n g of  persons i n t o c a t e g o r i e s i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . kind  end  Given what I take t o be an  principles,  Another  will  (1-1) of  the premise that  the  actions  'special'  of  principles  can be invoked t o o v e r r i d e the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s i n the case of certain there  kinds is  of  associations.  an a s s o c i a t i o n between the c h i l d being r a i s e d and the  person  who  second  s e t of super-imposed,  it  In the case of c h i l d - r a i s i n g  has taken on the task of r a i s i n g the c h i l d .  Where a  o v e r r i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s are allowed,  i s p o s s i b l e t o j u s t i f y t r e a t i n g c h i l d r e n as i f they were not  persons  simply  on  arrangement  in  time.  order  In  disengage  which  from  accepted  the  that  they  to  that a  basis  be  of  special  f i n d themselves treated  arrangement.  special  the  set  of  as  nature of the  at t h a t p a r t i c u l a r  a person the c h i l d must However, once i t has been  p r i n c i p l e s apply t o c e r t a i n  arrangements there i s no l o g i c a l imperative f o r t h a t arrangement to  terminate.  raised  in  disengage  It  such  a  is way  possible that  she  t o conceive of a c h i l d being (1-2) does not l e a r n how  from the arrangement and thus i s not capable of being  t r e a t e d as a person.  T h i s k i n d of approach to the  of  child-raising  the  actions  justifying justified way  to  the  treatment  of  opens  the  a person i n a way  the g e n e r a l j u s t i f i c a t o r y system.  possibility t h a t cannot  of be  (1-3)  The o n l y  t o a v o i d such a c o n f l i c t i s t o s t i p u l a t e t h a t any  'special'  principles  by  of  justification  for  'special'  social 8  arrangements must be d e r i v e d  directly  from  the  principles  other s o c i a l arrangements. to  claiming  derivable  that  from  than  having  'special'  principles  g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , the general p r i n c i p l e s  must be capable o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  f o r any o f the b a s i c ,  s o c i a l arrangements of the s o c i e t y  1.4.  are meant t o apply t o a l l  Such a s t i p u l a t i o n i s the e q u i v a l e n t  rather  the  that  integral  they c l a i m t o j u s t i f y .  E'irst Requirements of Systems In  order f o r the p r i n c i p l e s of a j u s t i f i c a t o r y system t o be  sufficient children able  r a i s e d a c c o r d i n g t o those p r i n c i p l e s must be  t o l i v e i n a f u t u r e s o c i a l arrangement which has a r e l a t e d  j u s t i f i c a t o r y system. state  as  a  result  Furthermore, c h i l d r e n of  people not by angels.  child-raising  The c r i t e r i a  must a r r i v e at that  c a r r i e d out by o r d i n a r y  f o r successful  child-raising  i n v o l v e s a j u s t outcome a r i s i n g from a f a i r procedure. The of  scope of the p r i n c i p l e s used t o j u s t i f y the arrangements  social  groups  required  to  of  useful  the  between  resources.  sharing  the  distributions  that  of  resources  among  are determined by the  John Rawls has made some  facilitate  clarification  o f the  the d i s t r i b u t i v e aspects o f c h i l d - r a i s i n g and and  resultant  patterns  (Rawls, 1971, pp.84-6)  of  distributions  of  a  birthday  cake  is  of  One k i n d o f d i s t r i b u t i o n i s  w i t h d i v i d i n g up and s h a r i n g some l i m i t e d t h i n g .  distribution. out  the range of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  what i s t o be d i s t r i b u t e d .  practices  concerned  to  Two k i n d s o f d i s t r i b u t i o n s  distinctions  relation  limited  determine  individuals. nature  is  an  example  The  of t h i s kind of  Rawls i d e n t i f i e s the procedures used i n c a r r y i n g  distribution  as  an  example 9  of  perfect  procedural  justice. case  According  of  t o Rawls two c o n d i t i o n s must be met f o r a  perfect procedural  pre-defined  justice.  First,  there must be some  independent c r i t e r i o n f o r determining what i s a j u s t  r e s u l t o f the procedure. Second, i t must be p o s s i b l e t o design a procedure who  f o r accomplishing  cuts,  chooses  concerned  last).  this  kind  of d i s t r i b u t i o n i s  o f access r a t h e r than shortage of a v a i l a b i l i t y .  p r o v i s i o n of an o p p o r t u n i t y an  Another  with p r o v i d i n g access t o something t h a t i s l i m i t e d by-  difficulty  is  the c o r r e c t r e s u l t (e.g. the person  example  When  independent  the  first  procedure  Rawls  i t imperfect  i s replaced  condition  (that  of procedural  of  having  but not the second c o n d i t i o n  satisfactory  condition  Rawls i d e n t i f i e s  as s u b j e c t t o one o f two kinds  criterion)  calls  the beauty of a sunset  o f t h i s k i n d of d i s t r i b u t i o n .  distribution  justice.  to appreciate  to  The  some  (that of a  achieve the c o r r e c t r e s u l t ) i s met, procedural  with  justice.  When the f i r s t  a c o n t r a c t u a l procedure, which i s  taken t o r e s u l t i n a f a i r and c o r r e c t outcome o n l y t o the extent that it  the procedure has been p r o p e r l y as  The  a  case  paradigm  involves Since  example  strict i t  is  pre-determined justice in to  o f pure p r o c e d u r a l of  this  adherence  to  not  agreed  perfect  and  Rawls i d e n t i f i e s  (Rawls, 1971, p.86)  form o f gambling t h a t  procedures  f o r the c h i l d i s required  i t i s not p o s s i b l e t o consider  such an arrangement.  directly  as  justice.  i s any  possible  procedures  followed,  of betting. to  i n pure  c h i l d r e n being  agree  to  procedural involved  Our c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w i l l thus be l i m i t e d  imperfect  procedural  involved.  10  j u s t i c e when c h i l d r e n are  Up  to  social  this  group  justifying  point  I  suggests the  have  the  argued t h a t the  need  arrangements  for of  a  e x i s t e n c e of  system of  the  social  principles  group  which  n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s some procedure f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n . there and  may  be  the  direct  a variety  arrangements connection  order  of ways to r e l a t e  to  system  for  of  justificatory child-raising  commonsense  notions  society  being  between  the  justifying  of  actions  child-raising  the  not  and  for  of  must  other c r i t e r i a .  adult  system Her  she  of  the  can  The  The  function  principles  efforts  procedures anyone  of  else  to  my  can  reasonably to the  the  child-raisers.  of  resources  The  must be be  child-raising raised  child-raising as  expected  to  both  in  avoid  separate practices  so t h a t  was  as a  raised.  require  any  did.  The  endure.  both the  This  child  and  distributions  availability  T h i s l a s t c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r e s an 11  of  f a i r as procedures that  procedures must c o n s i d e r by  the  a s o c i a l group t h a t has  procedures a f f e c t i n g  restricted  the  i t i s p o s s i b l e to  c h i l d must be  her  with  c l a i m that  to those i n which she  what  child-raising  condition relates  accessability.  undo  the  notions  a b i l i t y to l i v e i n t h a t s o c i a l group should not  heroic  if  a s s o c i a t i o n s , or  within  related  a general  compatibility  commonsense  derivative  In  characterize  recognize t h a t a  'special'  categories  an  desirable.  compatible  s u f f i c i e n t to e s t a b l i s h  persons.  principles  determine  which  a c t i o n s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g  principles  meet  I  derivative is  and  are  While  I have argued t h a t a  appears to be  principles  considered.  child-raising  two  general  t h i s works I w i l l i n t e r p r e t  derivative  'special'  child-raising,  between the  demonstrate how  the  a  and  by  identification  of  what  independent  criteria  are to be used i n determining a  proper d i s t r i b u t i o n and, where a p p l i c a b l e , what procedure used t o ensure t h a t the outcome i s the proper r e s u l t .  1.5.  can be  (1-4)  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of C h i l d - R a i s i n g I t would appear t h a t a necessary c o n d i t i o n of being a person  is  t h a t we  and  that  during this  engage i n some k i n d of i n t e r a c t i o n with other people we  the  are  we  now  (deMause that  consider  minimally  emergence from c h i l d h o o d . enterprise the of  achievement the  are  in  purport  to  uncover  d i r e c t opposition to  essential  for  I f the end-state of the  successful  child-raising  were c l e a r l y d e f i n e d i t would be p o s s i b l e t o measure  appropriateness  that  i s not c l e a r l y p r e s c r i b e d . 1974)  environments  persons  The nature and q u a l i t y of  with other persons  investigations  child-raising those  permanently i s o l a t e d from other  p e r i o d of our c h i l d h o o d .  interaction  deMause's  not  of the c h i l d - r a i s i n g a c t i o n s from the r a t e  of t h a t end-state.  However, i n order t o  ensure  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g i d e n t i f i e d a l l o w f o r  more than j u s t a simple means-to-an-end process, I w i l l  leave i t  open whether c h i l d r e n are r a i s e d f o r some end s t a t e or not. There  is,  child-raising.  however, That  a is  the  endowment of the c h i l d with the  opportunities  necessary  s o c i a l group.  I w i l l c o n s i d e r the endowment with o p p o r t u n i t y i n  detail two need  to  g e n e r a l purpose which c h a r a c t e r i z e s  become  a s u c c e s s f u l member of the  i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter.  aspects to  There are, however,  of t h i s u n d e r l y i n g purpose f o r c h i l d - r a i s i n g which  be c o n s i d e r e d at t h i s p o i n t .  The  first  characteristic  of the endowment with o p p o r t u n i t y i s the need t o ensure t h a t the 12  child  will  survive  to  c o n s i d e r the o p p o r t u n i t y .  There i s no  p o i n t i n p r o v i d i n g the c h i l d with an o p p o r t u n i t y i f she w i l l not survive  to  take advantage o f i t .  opportunity says  endowments  that  one  has  The second c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f  i s related  an  t o what one means when one  opportunity.  F i r s t , the having o f an  o p p o r t u n i t y i n v o l v e s the p o s s i b i l i t y o f making a c h o i c e . person  has  no  choice  activity  we  would  certain  way,  not  having or  of  have  there can  be  an  the  Second, the  In order t o s e i z e the o p p o r t u n i t y i t i s not, that  on  the  benefits  one i s able t o a c t i n a c e r t a i n way. of  the  opportunity  there  a v a i l a b i l i t y of the o p p o r t u n i t y .  must  be  In t h i s  an o p p o r t u n i t y i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the concept  of  J u s t as with resources t o be d i s t r i b u t e d ,  having  a v a i l a b i l i t y by shortage  seized  an o p p o r t u n i t y are l i m i t e d i n  or by ease of a c q u i s i t i o n .  Participants The  some  existence  who only  a  s o c i a l group i m p l i e s the e x i s t e n c e of  for child-raising.  characteristics  Child-raising those  of  arrangements  essential  The  compelled t o a c t i n a  T h i r d , having an o p p o r t u n i t y i m p l i e s t h a t  distribution.  1.6.  are  they have an o p p o r t u n i t y .  benefit  having  a  they  or not t o engage i n an  a b i l i t y t o a c t i n such a way t h a t the o p p o r t u n i t y  the  restrictions  of  whether  an o p p o r t u n i t y i s always the o p p o r t u n i t y t o do or be  sufficient  Whatever  to  that  that  seized.  however,  aspect  say  something.  is  as  I f the  of  What, however, are the  child-raising  activities?  a c t i v i t i e s are a p p a r e n t l y very d i v e r s e even among  profess thing  t o have the same ends f o r engaging i n them.  we know f o r c e r t a i n i s who must be i n v o l v e d i n  child-raising.  It  involved  that  essential  characteristics  There  we  i s , therefore,  are  can  drama.  child.  second  The  providers.  And  strangers,  those  the nature of those  expect t o f i n d the c l u e s as t o what the of c h i l d - r a i s i n g a r e .  three  child-raising  in  classes The and  of  first  actors  involved  i n the  and the most obvious i s the  most a c t i v e are the c h i l d - r a i s e r s or  the  last  with  no  are  the  r e s t of the group or the  involvement  i n or knowledge of the  enterprise. Since  the  child-raising be  learned  stranger,  the  about  nature  does  of  of  benefit  new  of c h i l d - r a i s i n g  have  enterprise.  regeneration  the  the  however,  supply  members  i s the most removed from a c t i o n of the  i t i s reasonable t o conclude t h a t very l i t t l e can  child-raising on  stranger  a  stake  i n the success of the  To the extent t h a t the group depends members  to  i t s institutions, from  ensure a c o n t i n u a t i o n and and t o the extent t h a t a l l  the c o n t i n u i t y of the i n s t i t u t i o n s ,  s t r a n g e r r e l i e s on the success of the group's  activities. that  the  The society  from him. The  stranger's continue The  direct  child-raising  concern, however, i s o n l y  i n whatever details  then  ways r e q u i r e d by the  justificatory  system.  o f the means used by the  child-raisers  and the nature o f the a c t i v i t i e s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g  are,  by d e f i n i t i o n , beyond the ken of the s t r a n g e r and t h e r e f o r e  are  of  no  particular  interest  t o him other than i n the most  general terms o f what i s moral and s u c c e s s f u l . At has  the  the  child.  other extreme of involvement we have the person who  most  interest  in  the c h i l d - r a i s i n g  At t h i s p o i n t I wish t o s t i p u l a t e 14  e n t e r p r i s e - the  t h a t I am c o n s i d e r i n g  the of  child  t o be a person with no i m p l i e d or a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s  category  The  child  protect  and  no s p e c i a l  rights  a  person who  must r e l y on others  is  her.  The  f a l l s i n t o two of  provision  broad c a t e g o r i e s .  or r e s t r i c t i o n s on  into  would  be  (1-5)  F i r s t , there  provided  quickly  and  left  inhibits  in  such  the  The  actions  straightforward  case  actions  of  in  relationship  what  satisfying and  a  intellectual  the c h i l d grows more  satisfy  the  child.  assistance  The  would  i n situations  most  be  c h i l d and  the  where the  In both cases the  position.  that child  Furthermore,  the c h i l d - r a i s e r  the  must tend  the c h i l d , while attempting t o express  i s as incapable those  those needs.  child-raiser  the  undesirable.  the  since  needs,  inhibiting  of  dependency  between  intimacy  can  case t h i s  i n j u r e d or might develop i n some way  is,  therefore,  growth  of the c h i l d - r a i s e r  considers  and  that  inhibiting  the c h i l d - r a i s e r  wants  way  the  second k i n d of a s s i s t a n c e i s t h a t which and  c h i l d might r i s k being  towards  a  kind  more completely than would be the case i f she were alone.  protective  i s the  In the most s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d  and  child  emergence of  the p r o v i s i o n of p h y s i c a l , emotional and  nurture,  just  adulthood.  to nurture  of t h i s a s s i s t a n c e to the  a s s i s t a n c e which f a c i l i t a t e s the growth and  child  actions.  needs  of independently  as  she  is  of  independently  In p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e by  growth  and  a l s o f a c i l i t a t e s and  development  identifying  facilitating  of the c h i l d  i n h i b i t s the c h i l d ' s  the  knowledge  of the world. As  one  would  child-raising kinds  of  are  expect the  child-raisers.  the  key  actors  child-raisers. (1-6)  There  in  the are two  drama  of  possible  What they are i s determined by  the  kinds  of  p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the c h i l d and the  child-raisers relationship  or p r o v i d e r s . with the c h i l d .  intentionally attempt those  The p r o v i d e r s may have an i n t i m a t e  to  provide  the  T h i s f i r s t k i n d of p r o v i d e r would n e c e s s i t i e s f o r the c h i l d , p o s s i b l y  a n t i c i p a t e the c h i l d ' s needs and make p r o v i s i o n f o r  needs, and c e r t a i n l y contemplate the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the  e x i s t e n c e of the c h i l d may put the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the resources r e q u i r e d t o meet those needs at r i s k . On  the  other  hand  the  r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d . consider  provider  may  have  a  remote  T h i s second k i n d of p r o v i d e r would  the needs of c h i l d r e n i n general and would at l e a s t be  w i l l i n g t o a l l o w an i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d t o use any s u r p l u s t h a t be  readily  providers general  available. are  my  a l l attempting  action  intimate  For  guiding  purposes  may  I take i t t h a t the  t o a c t a c c o r d i n g t o some s e t of  principles.  The  intention  and remote p r o v i d e r s are e n t a i l e d i n the nature  the  of the  relationship  they  provider  mainly  concerned  child,  the remote p r o v i d e r i s concerned with more  is  raising  one  general  trends  remoteness  can have with the c h i l d .  of  of  the  with  child's  growth  child.  into  a c t i o n s of  adulthood.  The  f o r the needs of each and  In a case where there were o n l y  i t would be necessary s ur pl us  detailed  of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s d i c t a t e d by the i n a b i l i t y of  the p r o v i d e r t o a n t i c i p a t e and p r o v i d e every  the  While the i n t i m a t e  'remote p r o v i d e r s '  f o r a c h i l d ' s s u r v i v a l t h a t a l a r g e enough  e x i s t amongst a l l the 'remote p r o v i d e r s ' t h a t the c h i l d  would have access  to the necessary  p h y s i c a l requirements  without  someone i n t e n t i o n a l l y p r o v i d i n g f o r or a n t i c i p a t i n g the needs of that i n d i v i d u a l  child. 16  For  our  purposes  possibility partially when  a  of  it  will  be  assumed  having p r o v i d e r s who  remote.  This  that  there i s no  are p a r t i a l l y i n t i m a t e  and  assumption i s based on the f a c t t h a t  s p e c i f i c c h i l d - r a i s i n g a c t occurs  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r  i s d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d with the c h i l d while the remote p r o v i d e r i s at l e a s t one A  step removed from the  significant  providers make.  difference  concerns The  the  intimate  between  remote  scope of the value  of  individual  existence  b e n e f i t s or harms other persons.  engaged i n value  all  persons  explain Where the  in  their  child  concern  for  benefits  and  continued  r e g a r d l e s s of whether h i s  judgments concerning  general.  intimate  judgments each must  The  remote p r o v i d e r  b e n e f i t s and harms f o r  T h i s allows the remote p r o v i d e r s to the p r o v i s i o n f o r any  there i s congruence i n the r e s p e c t i v e intimate  and  p r o v i d e r i s concerned with the  existence  is  the  occurrence.  value  remote p r o v i d e r s concerning  given  child.  judgments of  the p r o v i s i o n of  f o r a p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d or c h i l d r e n i n general, then i t  i s p o s s i b l e to examine the b e l i e f s of the remote p r o v i d e r s as i f given any  the  opportunity  specific child.  will  be  it  Where t h i s congruence does not e x i s t  inevitable  especially will  those be  particular  the child  they would become i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r s f o r  c o n f l i c t s over the a l l o c a t i o n of  which may  be i n s h o r t supply.  intimate  provider  receives  the  who  there  resources  In such a case  w i l l ensure t h a t the  necessary  resources  to  the  g r e a t e s t extent p o s s i b l e . It the  is  i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i o u s a c t o r s t h a t  justificatory  examine two  p r i n c i p l e s must be t e s t e d .  apparently  I will  therefore  complete but d i f f e r e n t systems of  general  principles to  the  g i v i n g s p e c i f i c a t t e n t i o n to how  I  have i d e n t i f i e d  relationships  endowed  must  imposed  by  must  has  a  be  the  of c h i l d - r a i s i n g . sufficient  C l e a r l y the  in  and  tight  for  it  The  inhibiting  t h a t they r e s u l t  required  That i s ,  to ensure t h a t the  child  a c t i o n s used by p r o v i d e r s  i n the endowment of minimal  membership i n the s o c i e t y .  will  w i t h the necessary o p p o r t u n i t i e s .  actions  of  choice  and  providers  therefore  providers  personhood  opportunities  I f the l i m i t s are  not  I f the  too been  l i m i t s on  appear  to  be  opportunities  Furthermore, l a x l i m i t s on the only  place  respect  for  the  p r i o r i t y i n determining the  are  actions child's  at r i s k but a l s o r e q u i r e more s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s  which p r o v i d e r has  the  are too broad, the c h i l d may* have no  what  a c t u a l l y forced choices. the  must be  not be p o s s i b l e to ensure t h a t a c h i l d has  the  full  l i m i t s imposed on the k i n d s of  endowed  to  logical  constraints  j u s t i f i c a t o r y system of t h a t s o c i e t y .  the s o c i e t y .  the  opportunities  chance of s e i z i n g the o p p o r t u n i t i e s which a l l o w f o r  facilitating  of  and  f o r the c h i l d to meet the  be p o s s i b l e f o r the p r o v i d e r s  membership  such  applied  some of the p e r t i n e n t i s s u e s i n  requirements.of membership i n the s o c i e t y w i t h i n the  it  be  r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the c h i l d , the p r o v i d e r s ,  strangers. the  they may  as  opportunities  to be endowed, and what a c t i o n s are to be used i n the process of endowment.  1.7.  Ennis' Most  Analysis  investigations  r e l a t e d to c h i l d r a i s i n g  are  concerned  with a c t u a l or a l l e g e d e m p i r i c a l judgments concerning the of  environmental  impact  f a c t o r s on b r i n g i n g c h i l d r e n to a p o i n t where 18  they  have  the  opportunities  society.(1-3) certain  child-raising  actions  to  be  a  member of a  Since I am concerned with the appropriateness  kinds  contention  required  I  that  for  of  actions  am  concerned  carried  with value  r a t h e r than having  adults  different  out  in  the  judgments.  name  more  more  systems of j u s t i f i c a t i o n of  from  those  g e n e r a l j u s t i f i c a t o r y system.  general  system  contradictory reflected  is  systems  actually  the  of  I t i s my  for children, i t i s  p o s s i b l e t o d e r i v e the p r i n c i p l e s of c h i l d r a i s i n g d i r e c t l y the  of  a  from  Furthermore, where the combination  of somewhat  same phenomenon of c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s  not only i n the p r a c t i c e s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g but i n the  p r i n c i p l e s used to j u s t i f y those p r a c t i c e s . Using  Ennis'  attention getting  more some  are  those  precisely sense  child-raising any,  a n a l y s i s (Ennis 1976)  of  what  the problem away from the concept emphasis  Ennis's  once  justifiable  in  experiences sensitive whether inequality  (1-7) people,  a  to  opportunity.'  p o i n t i s t h a t most of the people he knows  his five these  'cases' of d i f f e r e n t  And  yet  educational  same r e s p o n s i b l e , i n t e l l i g e n t  and  there i s strong disagreement among them about  particular of  'having an  judgments being  of e q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y .  presents  exceed  of e q u a l i t y with i t s  on the i n d i v i d u a l t o the value  starting  favor  Ennis  with r e s p e c t to  Ennis' a n a l y s i s provides a means f o r  i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the e x p r e s s i o n  are  is  factors that w i l l a s s i s t i n  when the a c t i o n s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g  justifiable limits.  strong  the  and what i n t e r f e r e n c e s with the c h i l d - r a i s e r s , i f  permissible  shifting  on  i t i s p o s s i b l e to focus  case  is  an  example  educational opportunity.  of  equality  or  Ennis takes t h i s to be  "indicative these to  of  some  deep-seated p o l i c y i s s u e s t h a t t r o u b l e us  days." (Ennis 1976, p.4)  achieve  an  that  removes  that  this  a n a l y s i s of e q u a l i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y  or r e l o c a t e s the debate.  kind  judgments.  of  dispute  the  concept  of  education to  and o f having dyadic  concept  of  relatively  equality,  once  be  By r e s t r i c t i n g h i s  of  educational  n e a t l y i n t o three p a r t s .  opportunity'  The f i r s t p a r t ,  and  isa  problem i n which there must be something t o some r u l e o f measurement.  uniqueness  measurement  may  be  two  an o p p o r t u n i t y .  'equality  and  associated  misleading.  The connotation of  with  the  concept  of  However, given agreement on  p o i n t s , what i s being measured, and what measurement  t h e r e can be no disagreement on the outcome as long as  the procedure o f measurement i s p r o p e r l y The second p a r t o f the concept it  value  f o r groups. (1-8)  correctness  entails,  with  i t i s r e s t r i c t e d t o a dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  measurement  measured  these  concerned  r e l a t i o n s h i p s Ennis avoids the unnecessary  separates  simple  i s often  o f 'equal e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y ' i n our ideas  c o m p l i c a t i o n s of accounting The  H i s approach i s t o show  Ennis l o c a t e s the controversy over the a p p l i c a t i o n  of  analysis  The task he s e t s f o r h i m s e l f i s  i s the d i f f e r e n t conceptions  commentators  on  Ennis'  As  Ennis'  conception  of  education  i s education.  To some extent  o f education h e l d by the v a r i o u s  five  answers.  executed.  cases t h a t cause the v a r i a n c e i n  a n a l y s i s suggests, does  the p r e s c r i p t i o n of a  not, however, b r i n g a l l p a r t i e s  i n t o agreement. It  i s the  opportunity  that  third  part  carries  of the 20  the most  concept  of  disruptive  equality  of  elements.  In  seizing  an  opportunity  'possessions.' two  The  categories:  (external). having  an  environmental,  individual  utilizes  two kinds of  k i n d of p o s s e s s i o n i s d e s c r i b e d by one personal  (Ennis  of  an  1976,  Feinberg  opportunity only.  (interior),  is  1973,  or  environmental  Richards  constituted  of  1973)  The  of the l a t t e r ,  the  When  someone i s c o n s i d e r i n g whether an  o p p o r t u n i t y has been a v a i l a b l e  f o r h i m s e l f or someone e l s e he i s  only  concerned with environmental  over  what  factors.  Disagreements a r i s e  i s to be i d e n t i f i e d as i n t e r n a l and what i s e x t e r n a l  to the i n d i v i d u a l .  Any  decision  d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between what i s  i n t e r n a l and what i s e x t e r n a l i s laden with value judgments most of which are b u r i e d . In  an  attempt  identifies he  s o r t out these kinds of d e c i s i o n s Ennis  two p o s i t i o n s  labels  the  Position."  are  'possessions' this  on the  "Liberal  (Ennis 1976,  position  that  to  those of  'value  Position"  judgment' spectrum which and  p.8)  The people who  who  tend  to  the i n d i v i d u a l .  i s not t o suggest  I t i s important  personal  component r e l a t i v e t o environmental  have  personal  to  considered  This  is  opposite  tendency  environmental to  Conservative intervene  i n d i v i d u a l , but o n l y the s i z e of the  those i n the Conservative p o s i t i o n  the  or  be will  solely see  assist  exaggerated  when  Liberal personal  to emphasize position  individual's  factors.  As would  are seen by  when determining  factors.  Ennis  the r a t i o of  Since p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s  are  the p o s s e s s i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l  the  very the  the  t h a t those i n the L i b e r a l  the  to  "Conservative  are i n the  minimize  minimize  be expected  the  few  possibilities  i n d i v i d u a l i n having an  f o r others to opportunity.  those i n the C o n s e r v a t i v e  position.  l i k e Nozick,  i n s i s t t h a t a group has  individual. Both  (Nozick 1974,p.33)  those  Liberal  no more power than a s i n g l e  in  position  the  Conservative p o s i t i o n and those i n the  would  agree  that  where  equality  o p p o r t u n i t y i s considered of value, and where some factor  is  l a c k i n g f o r one  to  consider  of  opportunity  problems  of  environmental  of the i n d i v i d u a l s , then i t i s v a l i d  changing the environment so t h a t there i s e q u a l i t y in  that  associated  case.  with  Ennis' a n a l y s i s addresses  agreement  whether the change i t s e l f i s worth the e f f o r t .  child  this  with  an  the  Liberal  located  opinion,  where  the  positions  and  on  between  Conservative  my  the and  focus of change i s best In  means t h a t persons concerned with endowing a  o p p o r t u n i t y are l i m i t e d not o n l y i n the k i n d of  f a c i l i t a t i n g or i n h i b i t o r y a c t i o n s t h a t are allowed, the  some  but a l s o i n  degree of i n t i m a c y p e r m i t t e d i n c a r r y i n g out those a c t i o n s .  This  is  particularly  significant  f o r the remote p r o v i d e r  who  must r e c o g n i z e the a p p a r e n t l y strong r e s t r i c t i o n on h i s attempts to endow an o p p o r t u n i t y t h a t impinges on the p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s of the  child. Ennis'  (Ennis  analysis  1976,  required  in  opportunity. involves the  p.17) deciding  He  the a p p r o p r i a t e focus of change.  identifies  about  change  kinds  relative  of judgments  to  c r e a t i n g an  the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between changes i n  environment  and  Determination  of  judgments  f a c t and p r e d i c t i o n .  of  two  Ennis p o i n t s out t h a t the f i r s t k i n d of judgment  determining  child's  suggests  the  child's  opportunities.  t h i s k i n d of r e l a t i o n s h i p r e l i e s on e m p i r i c a l The  second k i n d of judgment  h i g h l i g h t e d by Ennis i s the judgment concerning  "the  appropriate  focus  for  change."  (Ennis  1976,  p.17)  Determination  appropriateness of a c t i o n s n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s value The  principles  justificatory  governing system  a  justificatory  judgments.  such value judgments are p a r t of the  of a s o c i e t y .  b a s i s f o r an important  of the  In my  o p i n i o n , t h i s i s the  c r i t e r i o n f o r determining  system.  In  applying  the adequacy of  t h i s c r i t e r i o n to the  L i b e r a l and Conservative systems of p r i n c i p l e s to be examined i n the  l a t e r chapters of t h i s paper I w i l l be asking the q u e s t i o n :  Is  it  possible  experiences from  the  to  as  a  justify  positions  i n t e r f e r e n c e which the  child  r e s u l t of being endowed w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y ,  principles  child-raising  the  of each system?  institutions consistent  of  with  Put another way,  the  Conservative  our  commonsense  and  are the Liberal  notion  of  child-raising?  1.8.  Conclusion The  purpose  criteria system a  of  relative  this  been  to e s t a b l i s h  the  of p r i n c i p l e s used to j u s t i f y the s o c i a l arrangements of  society.  C e r t a i n approaches have been r e j e c t e d . of  rejected.  Second,  justificatory  principles  arrangement  a  separate  involved  restrictions,  along  child-raising,  the  justification  endowing  has  t o c h i l d - r a i s i n g t h a t must be s a t i s f i e d by a  establishment  the  chapter  children  a  category  variation on  has with  the  properties of with  actions, an  in  basis  also the  for  the  c h i l d r e n has been  the  application  of  of the k i n d of  social  rejected.  These  been nature  First,  of  the  activity  of  of r a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s used f o r and  the f a c t o r s necessary f o r  opportunity  result  in  a  set of  parameters  that  Conservative the  can  be  used  for  j u s t i f i c a t o r y systems.  following  justificatory  points  in  examining  the L i b e r a l and  Therefore,  I will  determining  consider  the s u f f i c i e n c y of each  system f o r g u i d i n g the c h i l d - r a i s i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s  e s s e n t i a l t o a s o c i a l group's c o n t i n u a t i o n . (i) must  C h i l d r e n r a i s e d according be  able  to  ' f i t into'  any  e q u i v a l e n t or d e r i v a t i v e  general  (ii)  must  The  resources (iii)  principles  relationships  (iv)  society  with  principles.  govern  involved  the  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  in  child-raising  and a l l  between those persons are s u b j e c t t o the same  principles.  The s o c i a l arrangements r e s u l t i n g  of the p r i n c i p l e s must be usable (v)  Child-raising  these  from an  application  by o r d i n a r y people.  as the a c t of endowing c h i l d r e n  o p p o r t u n i t i e s and ensuring enjoy  future  principles  l i m i t e d by supply and by a c c e s s i b i l i t y .  A l l persons  general  t o the general  with  t h a t they s u r v i v e long enough t o  o p p o r t u n i t i e s must be one of the b a s i c s o c i a l  arrangements j u s t i f i e d by the system of p r i n c i p l e s . (vi)  Finally,  justified  the  facilitating  and i n h i b i t o r y  by the p r i n c i p l e s , and the p e r m i s s i b l e child  focus f o r  change  of  the  notion  of  c h i l d - r a i s i n g as the s o c i e t y r e s u l t i n g from the  general p r i n c i p l e s  must be as c l o s e t o our  actions  i s t o our commonsense  24  commonsense  n o t i o n of s o c i e t y .  Notes t o Chapter One  1-1 as  Case has argued s u c c e s s f u l l y a g a i n s t the use of c a t e g o r i e s the  basis  certain  f o r j u s t i f y i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e s with the r i g h t s o f  persons.  H i s argument a g a i n s t the use of a v a r i a t i o n  from some standard  t o c r e a t e c a t e g o r i e s p o i n t s out the vagueness  implied  standards  by  such  as  "normal"  adults.  (Case 1982,  p.45ff)  1-2  Throughout t h i s paper I have i d e n t i f i e d the c h i l d and the  intimate  provider  stranger  as  clarity  as  male.  female, The  i t provided  and  only  the  reason  remote  provider  and  f o r doing t h i s was the  a t p o i n t s where I am r e f e r r i n g t o a l l the  p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the c h i l d - r a i s i n g e n t e r p r i s e .  1-3 the  T h i s approach r e q u i r e s some k i n d o f argument t h a t role  of  public  child-raising (Schrag our do  a t home.  rearing question  Schrag argues i n "Rights Over C h i l d r e n "  Schrag concludes  assist  We  that u t i l i t a r i a n  considerations  i n r e s o l v i n g the debate of who possesses r i g h t s  over our c h i l d r e n . "...  as the ' c o r r e c t i v e d e v i s e ' f o r  1983, p. 104) t h a t such an approach i s not acceptable i n  society. not  education  defines  Furthermore:  cannot  children certainly  on  therefore the  judge  social  arrangements f o r  b a s i s o f j u s t i c e alone.  F i n a l l y our  i n v o l v e s moral c o n s i d e r a t i o n s but i t i s not 25  simply a moral q u e s t i o n as p h i l o s o p h e r s t y p i c a l l y use t h a t term. Different  s o c i a l arrangements make p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n t  life  diverse  and  either (p.  forms  of  happiness.  moral or immoral i n these  styles  of  But there i s nothing  forms of happiness themselves."  105) Schrag's p o i n t of view i s i n c o n t r a s t to P. White's argument  t h a t parents do not have p a r e n t a l r i g h t s .  (White, P. 1983  p.  140  ff.) "The  role  against over  the  of  the parent,  too, o f t e n regarded  as a bulwark  domination of the s t a t e or the t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s i o n  pupil,  i s seen i n t h i s essay as another  power source which  needs to be kept w i t h i n a p p r o p r i a t e bounds." (p.  169)  Both arguments, however, i n t r o d u c e premises beyond a general justificatory  system,  and t h e r e f o r e i n t r o d u c e the c o n f u s i o n of  when the s p e c i a l p r i n c i p l e s  apply and when o n l y the more general  ones apply.  (1-4)  This l a s t condition refers  procedures Rawls, apply  of  the  distributive  perfect  and  the  institutions  criterion  for  determining  and  from  the  rights  t h a t the  j u s t i c e be s u f f i c i e n t l y j u s t .  imperfect forms of p r o c e d u r a l  to  Nozick,  to the requirement  of c h i l d - r a i s i n g . the  proper  of a c q u i s i t i o n  The  From  justice  independent  d i s t r i b u t i o n are, from  from the e n t i t l e m e n t  theory,  Rawls, the f a i r n e s s of the d i s t r i b u t i o n as determined  by the two p r i n c i p l e s  of j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s .  ensuring  the  results  Nozick's  world  proper  The procedure f o r  i s more d i f f i c u l t t o i d e n t i f y .  In  i t seems t h a t the f a c t of being born i n t o a r i c h  f a m i l y i s g e n e r a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o ensure t h a t the outcome i s the  proper  result.  possibility  since  enforcement original will  In  of  the  the  Rawlsian  correct  the p r i n c i p l e s  world  there  distribution of  relies  such  on the  j u s t i c e and o u t s i d e of the  p o s i t i o n i t i s c l e a r t h a t those with an over abundance  probably  resist  attempts  at  redistribution.  situation  i t i s o n l y the power of the group,  interests  of  the  ensure the proper  1-5  i s no  In such a  e x e r c i s e d i n the  l e s s w e l l - o f f , t h a t can enact a procedure t o  result.  The terms f a c i l i t a t i n g and i n h i b i t i n g a c t i o n s are taken  from E n n i s . (Ennis 1976, p p . l 2 f f )  He uses the terms t o i d e n t i f y  the f a c t o r s of the c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s used i n the e q u a l i t y of education  debate.  analysis  of  He enlarges the meaning o f the terms i n h i s  environmental f a c t o r s .  He concludes by suggesting  t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the f a c i l i t a t i n g and i n h i b i t i n g a c t i o n s of endowing  children  empirically  with  ( i . e . do  they  opportunities  can  be  considered  work? ) and m o r a l l y ( i . e . are they  appropriate? )  1-6  I  have avoided the use of the more s p e c i f i c l a b e l s f o r  child-raisers community that  as  f o r the  the  use  preconceived the  such  terms  remote  of  the  notions. 'aunt'  providers.  In  parent  and other  f o r the  provider. specific  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r and  The reason I d i d t h i s i s  labels  elicits  For example, i n some west coast v i l l a g e s 'uncle' small  are towns  used t o i d e n t i f y i n t i m a t e i t i s not uncommon f o r a  neighbor t o assume the r o l e of i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r . a  term  such  too many  as parent i s too r e s t r i c t i v e .  In such cases  I t i s my s u s p i c i o n  t h a t d e s p i t e our b e l i e f that the n u c l e a r f a m i l y dominates, are many c h i l d r e n being r a i s e d by 'extended  1-7  Ennis  uses  five  cases  there  groups.'  t o i l l u s t r a t e the problems of  e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y : (Ennis 1976, pp.3-4) Case  A  Edward  Tudor  and  Tom  Canty  from  Twain's  and Jack from r u r a l I l l i n o i s .  Both  children  The P r i n c e and The Pauper. Case appear  B  Jill  equal  however, treat  i n a b i l i t y and e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s .  Jill's  of  studying  was encouraged Case  and  Jack's G.P. f a t h e r  While both c h i l d r e n  originally  t o become e l e c t r i c a l engineers, o n l y Jack  t o pursue t h a t  C  goal.  F r a t e r n a l twins, Bonnie and Clyde have d i f f e r e n t  (130  1  father  the c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e n t l y .  dreamed  IQ s  truck-driving  At home,  and  170  respectively).  Bonnie attends EMH c l a s s ,  Clyde goes on t o S t a t e U. Case IQ s  D  but  1  poorly  different interests.  in  pursuits.  I d e n t i c a l twins, Alpha and Beta, have i d e n t i c a l  school  because  Beta, the outdoors person, does  there  Alpha, the academic,  Case  E  background  Alpha's that  values  are no  studies  i n outdoor  succeeds i n s c h o o l .  classmate, Beta's  Running Deer, comes from a  interests.  L i k e Beta, Running  Deer does not succeed i n s c h o o l .  1-8  As  Rawls' in  the  Ennis'  w i l l become e v i d e n t i n the a n a l y s i s of Nozick's and  works,  the treatment o f the group d i f f e r s  conceptions emphasis  on  significantly  o f the C o n s e r v a t i v e and L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n s . the  dyadic 28  nature o f e q u a l i t y allows h i s  analysis without  to  be  applied  to  the  analysis  s p e c i a l r e s t r i c t i o n s concerning  29  group  of Nozick power.  and Rawls  CHAPTER  LIBERAL AND  2.1.  TWO  CONSERVATIVE POSITIONS  Relevant Aspect of P o l i t i c a l Philosophy I  am i n t e r e s t e d  actions  of  child-raising  philosophies However, taken  embodied  embody  arrangements  what  the  North  principles  the North American  In order t o make a c r e d i b l e I  take  principles  to  be  it  will  be  which  justify  institutions  democracies  justify  first the  principles we  take  a l l the  of  there  is  no  of  identify  aspects of any  principles  the  in  principles of  political  necessary t o a way  our  which we use t o  s o c i e t y i s that the  must be both reasonable and moral.  be a requirement of any  further  need  for  of the i n d i v i d u a l  of each i n d i v i d u a l .  justificatory  elaboration.  The  i s t h a t they  Since system second convey  and the importance we p l a c e on  The 30  roughly  child-raising.  of our j u s t i f i c a t o r y p r i n c i p l e s  importance  the r i g h t s  to  I must f i r s t  child-raising  arrangements  themselves  requirement the  requirement  this  i s not a simple  p o s s i b l e f o r me t o i d e n t i f y  contain  social  democracies.  Once those aspects have been  e q u i v a l e n t t o our commonsense notions of The  political  which j u s t i f y the s o c i a l  the r e l e v a n t and e s s e n t i a l  philosophies the  the  American  attempt  j u s t i f y i n g our s o c i e t y .  established  from  g u i d i n g the  of a p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y which can be  a l l the  of  the p r i n c i p l e s  resulting  in  identification  to  task.  i n investigating  l a s t requirement i s f o r some  process  of  continuity  Furthermore,  we  are  to  be  embedded  in  the  principles.  not s a t i s f i e d with a system of p r i n c i p l e s  which allows f o r random or extreme f l u c t u a t i o n s i n the h o l d i n g s , positions only  a  or  s t a t u s of i n d i v i d u a l s on an ongoing b a s i s .  rational  complete  social  priority  of  stable  and  moral  arrangement,  individuals  distribution  acceptable  system of p r i n c i p l e s  but  of  political  which also  not  only  provides  resources,  will  philosophy  for  Thus,  justifying a  r e c o g n i z e s the for a r e l a t i v e l y  form the b a s i s f o r an the  North  American  democracies.  2.2.  Ennis' C o n s e r v a t i v e and L i b e r a l P o s i t i o n s Ennis'  provides  conception of the L i b e r a l and C o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n s a  political in  useful  philosophies.  Liberal  and  understanding accept  According the  Those  1976,  are  for  the  positions, of  the  have  difficulty  (Ennis 1976,  underlying  cause both  in  p.8)  i f we  of  their  positions.  in  changing  an i n d i v i d u a l as a f u n c t i o n of the  F a c t o r s such as b e l i e f s , g o a l s , m o t i v a t i o n  examples  of  personal  factors.  (Ennis 1796,  and p.9)  the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n , on the other hand, c o n s i d e r the environmental  p.9)  Conservative at  positions  those  t o Ennis, those i n the Conservative p o s i t i o n see most power  external,  American  Even though, a c c o r d i n g to Ennis,  others  analysis  the a n a l y s i s of North  i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r us to understand  personal f a c t o r . traits  for  Conservative  each  Ennis'  differences  of  device  By  f a c t o r s as being more important.  extending  this  distinction  (Ennis  between  the  and the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n s i t i s p o s s i b l e to a r r i v e  e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h i e s  of  each p o s i t i o n . In  are  the  C o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n , because the p e r s o n a l  taken  to  extremely  be  strong  dominant,  possesses  must  given  be  Conversely,  i t i s necessary to p r o v i d e f o r an  formulation  individual  of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s .  environment,  and  Conservative  to  from  interference  since have is  the  very  environment little  is  impact  taken  on  the  changing  the  interfere.  Furthermore, i n order to ensure t h a t the  overridden  factors  it  is  minimal need f o r others to have power to  in  his  imperative  efforts that  one  opposite  would  end  Liberal  as  environmental social  political  the  a  the  whole factors  p o s i t i o n occupies  the  While each i n d i v i d u a l i n the inviolability  override,  the  that  even  the  significance  of  i n c r e a t i n g change i n i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n  results in a shift  philosophy that  cannot  not  force.  Liberal  an  personal  the Conservative p o s i t i o n  spectrum.  possesses  group  institutions change  the  position  society  the  of  expect,  individual  to shape h i s own  a l l o w the group to become a dominating As  others.  by  there  not  by  the o n l y t h i n g t h a t others can change i s the  individual,  is  Since the  n e a r l y a l l the power t o change h i m s e l f he  protection  since  factors  of  of power to the group.  A  the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n must p r o v i d e f o r  w i l l balance the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l to  and develop h i s p e r s o n a l f a c t o r s with the assurance  that  changes to the i n d i v i d u a l ' s environment w i l l be c a r r i e d out  by the s o c i a l group on b e h a l f of the  32  individual.  2.3.  Paradigm Conservative - Nozick I  will  take  Robert  Nozick's  Anarchy, S t a t e , and U t o p i a the  Conservative  (Nozick  position.  In  position 1974)  as  presented  in  to be the paradigm of  the Conservative p o s i t i o n  as  represented by Nozick the f o l l o w i n g o c c u r s : 1.  The L i b e r t a r i a n moral s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t p r o h i b i t s a l l  aggression, i n c l u d i n g p a t e r n a l i s t i c 2.  aggression.  There i s no a c c e p t a b l e b a s i s f o r any asymmetry between  i n d i v i d u a l and group r i g h t s . 3.  What cannot be i n t e r f e r e d with i s t h a t to which one i s  justly  entitled.  E n t i t l e m e n t i s determined  by h i s t o r y of  a c q u i s i t i o n , not by a p a t t e r n .  It  is  in  the  process  of Nozick"s  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t the reasons the  Conservative  simple.  He  intrusion  can be  position  takes  on  property  completely  the  state.  Nozick's  j u s t i c e c a l l e d the  The  of  f o r adopting the p e r s p e c t i v e of  become  clear.  Nozick's purpose i s  the task of determining how  much s t a t e  j u s t i f i e d when i t i s assumed t h a t human r i g h t s  to  consists  establishment of these  c i r c u m s c r i b e the i n t r u s i v e a u t h o r i t y of argument  is  based  'entitlement theory.'  procedural  criteria  The  on a conception of e n t i t l e m e n t theory  f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y .  e f f e c t of these p r o c e d u r a l c r i t e r i a i s to encumber any good  which  is  economic  with  j u s t i f i e d ownership c l a i m s .  Nozick's  n o t i o n of p r o p e r t y i s more e x t e n s i v e than the commonsense n o t i o n of the  property. nature  Although he does not p r o v i d e an e x p l a n a t i o n of of  his  notion  of  property, i t i s c l e a r t h a t the  possession any  way  of property  e n t a i l s the r i g h t t o use t h a t p r o p e r t y i n  one wishes.  Therefore,  conclusion  that  unqualified  property  to  a l l r i g h t s w i t h i n the n o t i o n of 'property  include  Nozick  arrives  at  acquisition  of  humans,  the  as  procedural  there  when h i s arguments l e a d t o the  must  rights,  an  basis  rather  of  than  a  historical  basis  i t i s apparent t h a t Nozick  h i s conclusion  property,  rather  be  for  intends rights.'  by using the nature of the than  some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of  distribution. normative  The  basis  result  is a  f o r h i s n o t i o n of  rights. Nozick's everyday,  strategy  i s to  take  n o n - p o l i t i c a l circumstance,  some  and t o apply our judgment  i n i t t o the more expansive i s s u e s o f s o c i a l There  are  three  parts  Anarchy, S t a t e , and U t o p i a . subtitled derives  "How a  to  Back  into  justification  'non-state'  or  'state  to The  of of  non-controversial,  principles.  Nozick's  first  argument  part,  in  appropriately  a State without R e a l l y T r y i n g , " the  state  nature.'  from  a  c o n d i t i o n of  Through a chain o f events  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e i r l a c k of i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n with the affairs  of  classical  individuals,  liberal  a  theory's  minimal  state  equivalent  t o the  'night watchman' s t a t e a r i s e s as i f  created  by  an ' i n v i s i b l e hand.'  limited  to  the task o f p r o t e c t i n g i t s members from any acts o f  force does  or f r a u d . not  Nozick  involve  introduces  in  order  of  'hidden  The 'night watchman' s t a t e i s  Each member i s f r e e t o c a r r y out any a c t which the  f o r c i n g or d e c e i v i n g o f another member.  the n o t i o n of the ' i n v i s i b l e hand mechanism'  t o ensure t h a t there can be no suggestion  of any s o r t  agenda' on the p a r t of i n d i v i d u a l s i n the 'state of 34  nature'  who  have  'protective minimal  boundaries.  of  The  selfish  person's  in  associations'  state.  purely  acted  which  a  way  as  of  are  the  forerunners  protection  person's  j u s t l y acquired  that  property  person  create  are  properties.  then,  will  from i n v a s i o n s  boundaries  of  Nozick  Nozick  by  some  person  unacquired create  will  is a possibility  d i s c a r d , or hoard a  to  property  the  elaborate,  recognize at  any  available  protective  in  the  association.  first  instance  (2-2)  and  will  Therefore  the  association  without any  infringement on the r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l s .  convinced state. any  identifies  as  the  one  who  In order to s a t i s f y the a n a r c h i s t , Nozick must  the  provide  a  must be  infringement  of  the  eliminate  individual's rights  of the emergence of the minimal s t a t e .  To  theory of s o c i a l arrangements, however l i m i t e d those may  associations order  of  process  arrangements  In  anarchist  subscribers  of the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of the emergence of t h i s minimal  possibility  during  w i l l a r i s e and w i l l a t t r a c t  the  rights.  i t a l s o seems i n e v i t a b l e t h a t  protective  Nozick  justly  that the need f o r p r o t e c t i o n i s an  least  protective  that  argues, i t i s i n e v i t a b l e that  subscribe  does not  the  of one's  a s s o c i a t i o n i n order to maintain h i s l e g i t i m a t e property While  the  f o r the  prescribed  I f there  a person l o s i n g h i s r i g h t to use,  acquired  to  p r o t e c t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s are created  reason A  such  of  to  Nozick  individuals  e s t a b l i s h the  derivation  of  'invisible  hand,'  arrangements  be,  the  to  minimal and  the  must  establish  a  reason  which makes sense i n our  society.  l i n k between the e x p l a n a t i o n state actual  through  for  of  the  the v e h i c l e of  the  situation  of  which the a n a r c h i s t o b j e c t s , Nozick  real social introduces  the  n o t i o n of  while  the  'hypothetical h i s t o r i e s . '  r e a l h i s t o r y may  Nozick's c l a i m i s t h a t  have i n c l u d e d i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h  the  r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l s , those i n t e r f e r e n c e s were not necessary to achieve  the  minimal  state.  It  Nozick, t h a t the minimal s t a t e he in  the  situation  individuals.  where  Therefore,  sufficient  state,  it  to  is  to  i s d e s c r i b i n g would a r i s e even  there  was  no  interference  with  while the h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r y of  emergence of the minimal s t a t e may is  i s i n e v i t a b l e , according  explain  sufficient  the to  never have occurred,  the  since i t  i n e v i t a b l e emergence of a j u s t j u s t i f y the s t a t e .  Nozick, t h i s k i n d of argument should  According  convince the a n a r c h i s t  to that  a s a t i s f a c t o r y minimal s t a t e can e x i s t .  it  In  order  is  necessary  morally. would  to e s t a b l i s h the need f o r p r o t e c t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n s  If  never  individual  to  they  accept that i n d i v i d u a l s do not always act did,  arise  Once  and  the  the  case  imperfection  is  made  protective  associations,  the  emerges.  Once  established  he  dominant  protective  argument  to  security  subscribe  to  it.  'side-constraint'. side-constraint individuals as  means,  has  need  association,  prevent  complete  associations  s i n c e there would never be an i n f r a c t i o n of  rights.  acknowledged  the need f o r p r o t e c t i v e  for  to  of i n d i v i d u a l s i s the  existence  f o r c e everyone to  of join  the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of  Nozick  must provide  the  another  the a s s o c i a t i o n from t r y i n g t o ensure of  its  Nozick. (Nozick  members  by  uses  strategy  1974,  a  pp.30-1)  forcing  the  everyone  which  he  to  calls  T h i s concept of moral  combines Nozick's sense of the i n v i o l a b i l i t y  w i t h the Kantian idea of t r e a t i n g persons, not but a l s o as ends unto themselves. 36  To i l l u s t r a t e  of  only the  meaning  of  something argues  'side-constraint'  Nozick  that  i t t o be a t o o l t o do those p r o h i b i t e d t h i n g s  overrideable.  of  The moral s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t invoked by Nozick  one's  own g o a l s .  goal.  our  there  lives, p.33)  with r e s p e c t t o  The b a s i s f o r Nozick's s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t i s the f a c t of  separate  that  r i g h t s while i n  This i s a side-constraint rather  than a moral goal because i t c o n s t r a i n s behavior any  unless  The moral s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t i s  p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t v i o l a t i o n o f others  pursuit  He  i f there are c o n s t r a i n t s put on the use o f a t o o l  the c o n s t r a i n t s can be o v e r r i d d e n .  the  using o f  i t s use f o r c e r t a i n t h i n g s , i t does not make sense  to consider  is  the  as a means with the using of something as a t o o l .  prohibiting  not  equates  existences.  Nozick contends t h a t once we  accept  are o n l y i n d i v i d u a l people with t h e i r own, p e r s o n a l  then there can be "no moral b a l a n c i n g  a c t " (Nozick 1974,  which w i l l allow i n t e r f e r e n c e with an i n d i v i d u a l f o r some  "greater  social  good."  (Nozick  1974, p.33)  Nozick's case i s  complete once the moral s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t i s adopted. The  second  and  arguments  against  extensive  than  defeated  by  extensive  than  individual  sections  of  h i s book are extended  the p o s s i b i l i t y o f there being anything more  the  some  third  minimal  state.  variation  the  on  minimal  rights.  The  Each case considered i s  the  fact  state  results  ways  i n which  t h a t anything more i n a v i o l a t i o n of Nozick's  strong  f o r m u l a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s i s used r e v e a l s some p r o p e r t i e s of  the  moral  side-constraint  which I contend demonstrate the  need f o r a r e - c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the entry p o i n t i n t o the realm of entitlements. While  he  i s not  explicit 37  about  children  and what they  possess, state  Nozick  of  health,  nature. liberty  possessions  an  Those and  are  There are two of  seems to assume t h a t each person the  entirely  under  opinion  -  that  Nozick's  s e r i o u s gap with r e s p e c t to c h i l d r e n . of  the  notions  of  hooks  possessor.  uses to e l a b o r a t e the meaning  possessions  my  of  'hooks'  and  children  are  from a meaningful The  notion  concerning  An examination  and shares i n the next chapter  to  ensure  entry p o i n t . of  'hooks' i s i n t r o d u c e d i n Nozick's d i s c u s s i o n  (Nozick  carry  transaction,  will  allowed access to the realm of e n t i t l e m e n t s  1974,  p.264-5)  k i n d s of r i g h t s have hooks i n them. able  a  of h i s use  r i g h t s of i n d i v i d u a l s to engage i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s  transactions.  of  e n t i t l e m e n t theory has  r e v e a l the l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t y of some c o n d i t i o n which w i l l that  life,  A c c o r d i n g to Locke, these the c o n t r o l of the  notions which Nozick  In  s t a t e of nature have  possessions.  individual's  'shares.'  in  s t a r t s i n the  out  it  his  is  right  necessary  Nozick  and  claims t h a t these  In order f o r a person to be  to engage i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p or t h a t someone e l s e has decided t o  e x e r c i s e a matching r i g h t to engage i n t h a t same r e l a t i o n s h i p or transaction. someone Even the  Simply  I  am unable  i f there i s no-one a v a i l a b l e who  though Nozick structure  obvious  stated,  that  of some  expresses  to be f r i e n d s with  wants to be my  friend.  r e s e r v a t i o n s about h i s a n a l y s i s of  r i g h t s r e l a t e d to v o l u n t a r y exchanges, i t i s notion  like  that  of  'hooked'  rights i s  r e q u i r e d f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n of r i g h t s t h a t are d y a d i c . Another  notion  introduced  by  Nozick  i n his hypothetical  h i s t o r y f o r the more-than-minimal s t a t e i s t h a t of each possession  of  rights  person's  as being e q u i v a l e n t to h i s p o s s e s s i o n of 38  shares  in  the  pp.280-292) state the to  rights  of  other  individuals.  In t h i s weird t a l e , Nozick d e p i c t s  process of the allow  for  a  evolution  partitioning  rights.  and  Although Nozick's purpose i n t e l l i n g  certainly  be to s t a r t l e h i s readers i n t o the  the  liberal  and  therefore  The  imagery  j u s t i f i c a t i o n of our  the of  the  According  to  the  stock and  of  to  available  principles. which  I t i s therefore  no-one  else  to  transfer  necesary  to  compensate i n d i v i d u a l s who  interferences. Nozick  necessary slavery.  1  way  consider  to  on  shares.  to  consider  possible  l a i d claim.  argument  seriously  consider  any  giving  other them  possessions,  all  away.  If  It is  have l o s t r i g h t s due  (Williams 1983, his  story  then  to  Finally, i t is  Although i t would be p r e f e r a b l e  given away a l l h i s r i g h t s , then he slavery.  has  r i g h t s to other persons.  this  the  as  to  p.30)  of  avoid i t is  in  i t i s possible  I f a person has  the to  voluntarily  i s i n a p o s i t i o n of  voluntary  i n the process of g i v i n g away r i g h t s , the  a c q u i r e d shares i n everyone e l s e ' s r i g h t s , then the  becomes an a s s o c i a t i o n of mutually v o l u n t a r y s l a v e s .  to  'voluntary  Once i t i s accepted t h a t r i g h t s can be t r e a t e d as  state.  f o r disposal- a c c o r d i n g to  possible  pressing  rights  economic metaphor, i t i s p o s s i b l e  entitlement  unjust  eventual r e j e c t i o n  market i s u t i l i z e d to d e s c r i b e  accumulating  r i g h t s themselves as o b j e c t s  rights  s o c i a l arrangements must  democratic s t a t e p o r t r a y e d i s a j u s t  splitting  acquire  this  view, i t i s nonetheless, he h o l d s , a j u s t t a l e  selling,  Nozick's  In  v o l u n t a r y r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of  t a l e of  has  democratic  of the demoktesis, i t i s necessary  repulsive  same  the  1974,  as a demoktesis, a system of ownership of the people.  individual  of  (Nozick  person society  When a  new  member each  seeks  e n t r y i t i s necessary t o r e c a l c u l a t e , or r e - s p l i t  individual's  ensure only  share  t h a t the 'slavery'  i n each  o f t h e i r r i g h t s i n order t o  i s s t i l l mutual.  Because t h i s i s the  point  i n h i s argument where Nozick s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r s the  possessions  o f c h i l d r e n upon t h e i r emergence from the 'state o f  nature' i t i s necessary f o r me t o c o n s i d e r the notions o f shares and  splitting  of  shares  i n order  p r i n c i p l e s apply t o c h i l d r e n ' s w i l l occupy a p o r t i o n  2.4.  t o determine how Nozick's  entitlements.  That  investigation  o f the next chapter.  L i b e r a l P o s i t i o n from Rawls The  Liberal  elaboration  position  of  justice  A Theory o f J u s t i c e . characterize  i s represented as  (Rawls  fairness  1971)  by  the  i n John  The  systematic  Rawls'  following  book  statements  the k i n d o f s o c i a l arrangement t h a t r e s u l t s from an  a p p l i c a t i o n of Rawls' p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e : 1.  Each  person  possesses an i n v i o l a b i l i t y  founded on  justice. 2.  The  principles  hypothetical their  of  justice  are determined  i na  s i t u a t i o n by persons who are c h a r a c t e r i z e d  by  r a t i o n a l i t y and t h e i r lack of knowledge o f t h e i r own  individuality. 3.  Because  decisions  on the p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e are  made so t h a t they w i l l be f a i r , they are p a t t e r n e d . The the  start.  theory that  differences  of  between Rawls and Nozick are apparent from  Rawls' purpose i s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the aim o f any j u s t i c e must be t o d e f i n e  confirms  most  o f our o r d i n a r y 40  a p l a u s i b l e g e n e r a l theory judgments of what i s j u s t .  In c o n t r a s t t o the e x p l o r a t i v e work o f Nozick, Rawls' work i s an attempt  to  general  framework  The  introduce  purpose  theory.  of  of  difficulties  certain the  using  that  simplifying  devices  into  t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l contract  these  devices  i s to  give r i s e t o the u t i l i t a r i a n  the  theory.  eliminate  the  version of that  In t h i s s e c t i o n o f my paper I w i l l attempt t o h i g h l i g h t  some of Rawls ' s i m p l i f y i n g d e v i c e s . ' Rawls best  contends  that  approximates  our  constitutes  the  institutions. normative  most  deliberative  He  o f j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s justice  basis of  and  f o r our  justice  therefore democratic  i s obviously a  conceives of goodness as c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  In  order  institutions  required  arrangements,  Rawls  Rawls'  of  conception  rationality,  self-respect.  well-ordered  judgments  appropriate  Rawls'  one.  the conception  plans to  to  for  ensure  achieve  considers  the  one's  life,  existence  goodness  and  o f the  through  social  i t necessary t o have a s t a b l e ,  s o c i e t y e s t a b l i s h e d on the p r i n c i p l e s o f e q u a l i t y . argument  hypothetical  starts  situation  of  with the  the  establishment  'original  position'  of the which i s  constructed  in  such  established  by  the people i n the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n (the POP'S)  will  be  which  the  institutions rights at  p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s , the p r i n c i p l e s  establish  structure  a way as t o guarantee t h a t the p r i n c i p l e s  of  the the  which  and d u t i e s .  basic Rawlsian  structure society  accomplishes Included  of  society.  i s that  The b a s i c  structure  of  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of e s s e n t i a l  among Rawls' major i n s t i t u t i o n s i s  l e a s t one component of the i n s t i t u t i o n o f c h i l d - r a i s i n g , the  monogamous f a m i l y .  (Rawls 1971, p.7) 41  The  next  phase  i n Rawls' argument i s h i s establishment of  the p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e which the POP the v e i l of ignorance. of  would d e r i v e from behind'  The g e n e r a l conception of the p r i n c i p l e s  j u s t i c e f o r i n s t i t u t i o n s i s that the primary s o c i a l goods of  liberty,  opportunity,  income,  (Rawls are  1971,  behind  device forum of  of for  for  they  of the l e a s t favored.  An examination of the k i n d s of people t h a t  veil  of ignorance r e v e a l s the power of Rawls'  'original position.'  equality.  these  The o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n i s a  In order to ensure the a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t u s  persons  permitted  to  permit  fair  will  limits  only  the d e l i b e r a t i o n s of r a t i o n a l persons i n a s i t u a t i o n  are  which  the the  complete  quo  p.302)  The  of  equal d i s t r i b u t i o n allowed are those i n which an i s to the advantage  equally.  basis  exceptions  distribution  distributed  the  are  unequal  be  and  self-respect, to  to  wealth  imposed  by  the  i t i s necessary t o l i m i t the knowledge have  i n the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n t o t h a t  agreements  to  be reached.  Once the  v e i l of ignorance are understood i t i s  p o s s i b l e t o a s c e r t a i n the p r i n c i p l e s which would emerge from the r a t i o n a l d e l i b e r a t i o n s of the POP. that  there  theory veil  of of  is  link  rational ignorance  information which  a  is  required  choice. with  allowed  between  for  the  h i s theory of j u s t i c e and the  Rawls l a y s out the nature of the  care.  behind  Because of t h i s Rawls c l a i m s  (Rawls  1971,  pp.136-142)  The  the v e i l of ignorance i s o n l y that POP  t o know t h a t t h e i r s o c i e t y i s  governed by the circumstances of j u s t i c e and the i m p l i c a t i o n s of justice. In  order  to  appreciate  an 42  important  d i f f e r e n c e between  Nozick  and  'changes assumes  Rawls  over  i t i s necessary t o consider  time.'  that  Using  the element of  h i s h i s t o r i c a l approach, Nozick  by programming the machine with h i s p r i n c i p l e s of  a c q u i s i t i o n , t r a n s f e r , and compensation and s e t t i n g i t i n motion in a  the midst o f s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t  i n d i v i d u a l s , the r e s u l t w i l l be  j u s t s t a t e with the minimum o f i n t e r f e r e n c e with i n d i v i d u a l s .  All will  transactions only  be  w i l l o f course be recorded  allowed  on the machine and  i f they are a c c o r d i n g  t o the programmed  principles.  At any time the a c t i o n may be f r o z e n and by reading  the  of  memory  transactions Any  the  are  adjustment  machine  just  to  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o show t h a t a l l  and,  the  as a r e s u l t , the s o c i e t y i s j u s t .  principles  r e s u l t e d i n the same d i s t r i b u t i o n . risk  because,  would  be unjust  unless i t  P r i n c i p l e s cannot be changed  without  great  i f after  a l l t r a n s a c t i o n s have  occurred  a p r i n c i p l e i s changed i n such a way t h a t i t s use would  have r e s u l t e d i n a d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n , then the t r a n s a c t i o n s that  had  gone  on  before  be  unjust and the r e s u l t a n t  society  would  use  an  iterative  the  p r i n c i p l e s t h a t can be d e r i v e d by the POP.  the  original  imagine  position  limited  behind  Rawls' p r i n c i p l e s on the other hand,  approach, moving towards the s a t i s f a c t i o n of  returning  stepping  to the  i s not  closed  possible  improving that  also  the change.  Since access t o  o f f i t i s possible to  i t as long as i t i s p o s s i b l e t o imagine appropriate  knowledge t h a t i s permitted  hopefully  will  be u n j u s t .  would  as  the  readjustment o f 'holdings'  of  ignorance.  As the  behind the v e i l can change,  p r i n c i p l e s are implemented, i t i s  principles Rawls  veil  o f j u s t i c e d e r i v e d by l a t e r POP embeds  the  i n t h i s process. 43  procedure  f o r the  I t i s i n the r e t u r n  to  the  able  original  to  position  t h a t the members of the s o c i e t y are  make the r e q u i r e d adjustments i n a s e r i e s of i t e r a t i v e  approximations. Nozick,  on  compensation  the  to  carry  misallocations. upon  other, hand, the  expects  full  weight  the of  principle  of  correction  of  And y e t the p r i n c i p l e o f compensation depends  a comparison of the a l l o c a t i o n s f o r two p a r t i c u l a r people.  Nozick  concedes  that  such  a  comparison may not be j u s t even  though the s o c i e t y i s c o n s i d e r e d  just.  There  i s another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f those behind the v e i l o f  ignorance  which i s e s p e c i a l l y important i n my c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of  the  p r i n c i p l e s o f c h i l d - r a i s i n g t h a t can be d e r i v e d from Rawls'  general II,  theory.  ch.  IV,  "temporal (Rawls the  F o l l o w i n g Rousseau  p a r . 5)  position,  1971,  concerned  they  of  about  generation  contention  the  is  forced  veil  their  though  to. that  i n s i s t s that whatever a person's  of  second  The POP must be off-springs'  they are not aware of which  Given the  part  ignorance.  g e n e r a t i o n and t h e i r  these  restrictions  principles  n e c e s s a r i l y emerge from the o r i g i n a l The  t o choose f o r everyone."  T h i s r e s t r i c t i o n i s accomplished through  both  even  belong  each  p.140)  imposition  Rawls  (The S o c i a l C o n t r a c t , bk.  of  of  generation  i t is  justice  as  Rawls'  fairness  position.  A Theory o f J u s t i c e  consists  of  a  d e s c r i p t i o n o f a p o s s i b l e s o c i a l arrangement which s a t i s f i e s the principles  of  justice  as  fairness.  The s o c i a l  arrangement  s e l e c t e d by Rawls i s t h a t o f a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l democracy. process  of  investigating  the  institutional  requirements  j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s , Rawls c l a r i f i e s the p r i o r i t y r u l e s 44  In the of  covering  the  principles.  priority  of  The  liberty  second  priority  second  principle  social  and  first  establishes  the  from the f i r s t p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e .  The  rule  priority  governs  of  the order of a p p l i c a t i o n of the  justice  economic  rule  which  inequalities  establishes of  the  the b a s i s of  primary goods.  It  e s t a b l i s h e s the p r i o r i t y of j u s t i c e over e f f i c i e n c y and w e l f a r e . (2-3)  Rawls accomplishes  book.  First,  two tasks with the second p a r t of the  he e s t a b l i s h e s the content of the p r i n c i p l e s of  justice.  Second, he demonstrates  prescribe  a  workable  source  of  the  psychology  goodness  theory of j u s t i c e i n human thought, His  and  acquisition  of  is  argument justice  because  the  from  what  he  takes  to  feeling  and  from the f a c t of moral be  the  process  of  the sentiment of j u s t i c e t o the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Another  c o n c l u s i o n from t h i s p a r t of  i s t h a t i n the circumstances of a w e l l - o r d e r e d and  theory  values  s t r a t e g y i s t o argue  rational.  society  social  justice.  f i n a l p a r t of Rawls' work i s concerned with l o c a t i n g the  aspirations.  Rawls'  justice  p o l i t i c a l conception which i s c o n s i s t e n t  with our c o n s i d e r e d judgments of The  t h a t h i s p i n c i p l e s of  and  goodness of the  are  congruent.  Furthermore,  j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s i s l i n k e d with the communal  good  of our s o c i e t y , t o the  extent t h a t our s o c i e t y i s a w e l l - o r d e r e d s o c i e t y i t i s a s t a b l e society. he  Rawls has thus argued  has d e f i n e d i n such a way  from the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n which  that i t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what we  a l r e a d y accept as reasonable i n our conduct w i t h each o t h e r . has  presented  the  He  i n s t i t u t i o n s necessary f o r the w e l l - o r d e r e d  society.  Finally  he  has demonstrated  principles  of j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s with our c o n s i d e r e d judgments 45  the c o n s i s t e n c y of the  and a c t u a l s o c i a l arrangements. a  Rawls c l a i m s t h a t the r e s u l t i s  p e r s p e c t i v e on the human s i t u a t i o n which permits the  derivation everyone  of to  a  rational  s e t of a c t i o n - g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s which permit  strive  f o r t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l goals while a f f i r m i n g  the same r e g u l a t i v e scheme.  2.5.  Comparison of P o s i t i o n s I  will  now as  address  and  Rawls  the  Conservative  knowledge emerges  of  a p a i r of q u e s t i o n s .  f a r apart as i s suggested and  the  Liberal  boundaries  from Nozick's  First,  are  Nozick  by Ennis's a n a l y s i s of  position?  Second,  does  the  of j u s t i f i a b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e which  "strong f o r m u l a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l  rights"  and the e x t e n s i v e i n t e r f e r e n c e allowed by Rawls' b a s i c s t r u c t u r e provide  any a c t i o n g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s f o r r a i s i n g c h i l d r e n i n a  s o c i e t y t h a t operates positions? next two  This  second q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s the a n a l y s i s of the  chapters before an answer i s p o s s i b l e .  Ennis those  from both the Conservative and the L i b e r a l  suggests  in  the  that  the  Conservative  c o n t r o v e r s i e s t h a t a r i s e between position  and those i n the  position  are  "about b u r i e d value judgment(s) t h a t one  applying  the  concept  p.9)  'to  Liberal makes i n  have an o p p o r t u n i t y . ' " (Ennis  As a r e s u l t of Nozick's  strong f o r m u l a t i o n of  1974,  individual  r i g h t s i n which he takes the p o s i t i o n t h a t the group can have no more  power than any i n d i v i d u a l ,  holds  that  the  individual  resources necessary  Ennis'  Case  must  possess  a l l the  t h a t Nozick available  to c a p i t a l i z e on any p a r t i c u l a r o p p o r t u n i t y .  In the s t o r y of Jack and J i l l , of  i t can be concluded  the e n g i n e e r i n g s c h o o l  B (2-4), J i l l ' s 46  apparent  candidates  l a c k of m o t i v a t i o n i s  not  a s i g n i f i c a n t i s s u e f o r the C o n s e r v a t i v e .  school  put  pressure  on  Jill,  Nozick would have to conclude group  is  attempting  to  exert  on  herself  a  formulation  i n an attempt to motivate  t h a t t h i s i s an i n t e r f e r e n c e .  e x e r t more power on J i l l clear  than she  infringement of Nozick's The  can  strong  judgments r e l a t e d to 'having an o p p o r t u n i t y ' are a d i r e c t  result  the C o n s e r v a t i v e view concerning n e u t r a l s o c i a l arrangements  with  clear  p r i o r i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l over any group.  Conservative conditions from  from  individual without  of  as represented by Nozick, an  the  For the necessary  o p p o r t u n i t y are as f o l l o w s .  association  the  s o c i a l arrangement which  can  the  f o r m u l a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s  strong  decide  to  be  First,  opportunity  can  accept  created  or  by the  reject  individual.  possible  case, for  from  the  Conservative  perspective  it  have  to  father  was  was  The  s o c i a l arrangement  she  c r e a t e would be one where her r e l a t i o n s h i p with different,  where  her  locus  of a c t i v i t y  was  and where her a s s o c i a t e s were d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of  being a housewife.  Her d e c i s i o n would be made i n an environment  void  of any p a t e r n a l i s i t i c i n t e r f e r e n c e . As an i n d i v i d u a l  from  any  interference  of  the  kind  s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t posed by Nozick, J i l l either  Thus  her to ignore her f a t h e r ' s d i s c o u r a g i n g words and  the quest f o r the i r o n r i n g .  different,  the  the o p p o r t u n i t y  i n t e r f e r e n c e from i n d i v i d u a l or c o l l e c t i v e o t h e r s .  Jill's  would  having  right the  Second,  pursue  position, for  the  includes  her  rights.  The  value  in  individual  her,  Conservative  of  of  -  I f the f a m i l y or  end-state  fulfills  prohibited  free  by the moral  i n the process of  choosing  her d e s t i n y as an i n d i v i d u a l as long  as the moral s i d e c o n s t r a i n t i s upheld. 47  The the  L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n takes the opposite view with r e s p e c t t o  significance  Once  a  group  acquires clearly own  of  is  special seen  worth'  social  created power  arrangements r e s u l t i n g i n groups. by  to  a s o c i a l arrangement t h a t group  a c t upon the i n d i v i d u a l .  This i s  i n Rawls' argument e s t a b l i s h i n g a 'sense of one's as  a  primary  good.  (2-5) Those  i n the L i b e r a l  p o s i t i o n not only h o l d t h a t the e x i s t e n c e of some k i n d o f s o c i a l arrangement t h a t r e s u l t s i n a group i s necessary, sufficient  to  individual  can  of  establish possess.  responsibility  individual  power  greater  than  but t h a t i t i s that  which any  T h i s f a c t opens the way f o r the s h i f t  from the i n d i v i d u a l t o the group of which the  is a  member.  Those i n the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n d e r i v e  from Rawls' second p r i n c i p l e a s e t o f c o n d i t i o n s f o r the h o l d i n g of  an o p p o r t u n i t y .  First,  any i n e q u a l i t y t h a t r e s u l t s from the  h o l d i n g of an o p p o r t u n i t y must be t o the g r e a t e s t b e n e f i t of the least  advantaged.  Second,  the  offices  and p o s i t i o n s which  J  result  in  under  s o c i a l and economic i n e q u a l i t i e s must be open t o a l l  conditions  Ennis'  Case  of f a i r equality of opportunity.  B,  this  means  i f the  opportunity  For J i l l of to  attend  engineering  school  there  be an e f f o r t t o ensure t h a t she has a f a i r e q u a l i t y  of  must  opportunity.  indication then to  any  that  r e s u l t e d i n s o c i a l and economic i n e q u a l i t y ,  I f her f a t h e r ' s l a c k o f support Jill  is  i s taken as an  i n a p o s i t i o n of l e s s e r  opportunity,  measures which are taken by the s c h o o l of e n g i n e e r i n g  favor some candidates must r e s u l t i n an enhancement of J i l l ' s  opportunities justice then  over  Jack's.  Since  the  second  p r i n c i p l e of  i s l e x i c a l l y p r i o r t o the p r i n c i p l e o f e f f i c i e n c y (2-6) consideration  of  Jack's 48  being  disadvantaged  by the  improvement of J i l l ' s Jill's  o p p o r t u n i t i e s have been enhanced.  Given  these  positions, seems  circumstances can o n l y be c o n s i d e r e d a f t e r  as  clear  descriptions  The  respective  they  Liberal  are  in  fact  as  far  apart as Ennis  p o i n t of t h i s essay i s to go around behind the  political  interferences  the C o n s e r v a t i v e and  represented by Nozick and Rawls r e s p e c t i v e l y , i t that  suggests.  of  of  philosophies  and  t o i n v e s t i g a t e how  c h i l d - r a i s i n g can be j u s t i f i e d u s i n g the same  premises t h a t are used t o j u s t i f y i n t e r f e r e n c e i n g e n e r a l . is  the  task  I  the  will  undertake i n the next two c h a p t e r s .  This The  r e s u l t of t h i s re-examination of the d i v e r g e n t j u s t i f i c a t i o n s of interference  in  our s o c i e t y w i l l be the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of what  appear t o be the g e n e r a l boundaries of j u s t i f i a b l e  interferences  r e l a t e d to c h i l d - r a i s i n g .  2.6.  R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Relevant Aspects At  the  beginning  of  conditions  for  the  principles  for  democratic  consider  the  to  The  first  reasonableness expect premise are  both  and Nozick  that  social  chapter  acceptability  extent  requirements.  this  I t i s now  of  Rawls  the p r i n c i p l e s . build  their  different. supposed  as  p o s s i b l e to those  t h a t of the As one would  p o s i t i o n s on the  arrangements n e c e s s a r i l y imply t h a t there  o b l i g a t i o n s t o behave i n c e r t a i n ways.  obligations  three  political  Nozick and Rawls s a t i s f y  requirement I posed was  morality and  suggested  of a c t i o n - g u i d i n g  societies. which  I  argued  by  Nozick  and  The b a s i s f o r those Rawls  are,  however,  Nozick argues t h a t people g e n e r a l l y do what they are t o do.  Because people w i l l g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w the moral 49  rules,  or  side-constraints,  obligations  imposed by  to  it  Nozick  implied  by  followed.  For  interferences  be  unreasonable  a  justifies  reasons  to assume that the  serious  with  rights  contradictory  interference  the  the  existence  'free  each  by Nozick and conclusions,  second c o n d i t i o n  i n d i v i d u a l and individual.  world  extent asks  "why  (Nozick the  the  it  that  basic  Obviously  focusses p.190)  structure  distributive  create  p.186) the  generally  p.96)  justice  is  rights  and  the which  Although  the  t h a t the  the  resultant  a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a set  they convey the p l a c e on the  p r i n c i p l e s of the  importance rights  of  Nozickean  There are, however, those such as i n e r r o r to  of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s .  the  Nozick  i n the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n choose a  Through a n a l y s i s (2-7)  the  moral.  upon groups r a t h e r  than  individuals?"  of Rawls' d e r i v a t i o n  of  Nozick concludes t h a t the problem of limited  r e s u l t s of the p r o d u c t i o n of 1974,  appears  that  they permit o v e r i d i n g  1974,  be  Rawls r e s u l t i n what appear to  s i g n i f i c a n c e we  (would) i n d i v i d u a l s  principle  obligations  state  would argue that Rawls p r i n c i p l e s are  that  the  According  mechanism w i t h i n  I posed f o r the  meet t h i s requirement.  Nozick who  the  f l o u r i s h . (Sampson 1978,  j u s t i f i c a t o r y p r i n c i p l e s was  of the  not  that  with i n d i v i d u a l  of  market'  p r i n c i p l e s are both reasonable and  of  expected  r i g h t s could e x i s t and  both  presented  The  be  those i n the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n , however, i t i s  of  individual  can  i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s w i l l be met.  individual  possibility which  is  it  to  the  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  " j o i n t s o c i a l cooperation."  F u r t h e r , Nozick asks, "Why  (Nozick  does s o c i a l cooperation  problem of d i s t r i b u t i v e j u s t i c e ? 50  the  Would there be  no  problem  o f j u s t i c e and no need o f a theory .of j u s t i c e , i f there  was  s o c i a l cooperation at a l l ,  no  solely  by  h i s own  efforts?"  i f each person got h i s share  (Nozick  1974, p.185)  Nozick's  argument with Rawls' p o s i t i o n concerning groups and the products of  social  cooperation  insistence asymmetry  that of  alternative must  power  to  what  made  of h i s  of  groups.  Nozick proposes an  takes t o be the s o c i a l o r d e r i n g which  attempt  p.165)  light  no p o s s i b l e case t o be made f o r an  favor  he  in  As  t o have a p a t t e r n e d d i s t r i b u t i o n . he  says,  "Individual  r i g h t s are  each person may e x e r c i s e h i s r i g h t s as he chooses.  exercise  Within  was  in  any  1974,  co-possible; The  there  accompany  (Nozick  i s understandable  the  o f these r i g h t s f i x e s some f e a t u r e s of the world. c o n s t r a i n t s of these f i x e d f e a t u r e s a c h o i c e may be  by a s o c i a l c h o i c e mechanism based upon a s o c i a l o r d e r i n g ;  i f there are any c h o i c e s l e f t t o make!" (Nozick 1974, p.166) I t is  the  establishment  concerns Rawls. to  fact  the  establish risk  the p r i n c i p l e s o f j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s without  sense  Rawls'  ' s o c i a l c h o i c e mechanism' t h a t  Rawls r e l i e s on the premise t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e  pre-determine  losing  of a just  of  claim  those  i n d i v i d u a l i t y and i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s .  i s the  principles  stronger  one  different  satisfied  the  i f we do not  i n the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n , then we  l o s i n g some of our i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s .  despite  that  In  conclusions, requirement  both  of  Again i t seems that  Nozick  recognizing  and  Rawls  have  individuals  and  i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s o f some k i n d . The  last  principles society  condition  used  i s the  to  I  justify  necessity  posed the  f o r the a c c e p t a b i l i t y of the social  arrangements  of our  f o r some c o n t i n u i t y processes t o be  embedded be  i n the j u s t i f i c a t o r y system.  o f two types.  extreme  social  Clearly  Nozick's  possessions  is  not  of  which  well-off  are  adjustments,  successive  extreme  individuals.  status  of  or  generations.  t h a t there w i l l be otherwise,  i n the  Rawls' p r i n c i p l e s o f j u s t i c e as  though they a l l o w f o r f l u c t u a t i o n s i n the  individuals  provided  with  i n order t o ensure t h a t the l e a s t the primary  goods. Rawls p r o v i d e s  f o r the e x t e n s i o n of the w e l l - o r d e r e d s o c i e t y over  generations. to  over  or  with the extension of  e n t i t l e m e n t theory ensures  even  of  specifically the  positions  govern r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s determine a p a t t e r n t h a t  random  possessions  as  arrangements  involuntary  fairness  i n holdings,  The second type i s concerned  related  no  The f i r s t type i s aimed a t a v o i d i n g random or  fluctuations  individuals.  C o n t i n u i t y processes can  There i s some ambiguity  i n Nozick's  arguments  how the e n t i t l e m e n t theory operates between g e n e r a t i o n s .  I w i l l make some s p e c i f i c comments i n the next chapter as t o how Nozick must be i n t e r p r e t e d i n order t o e l i m i n a t e t h i s Again Nozick  i t appears and  Rawls  that  despite  have  presented  their  ambiguity.  d i f f e r e n t conclusions,  j u s t i f i c a t o r y systems which  s a t i s f y my c o n t i n u i t y requirement. The  existence  of  such  diverse  systems  o f p r i n c i p l e s of  justification  o f the s o c i a l arrangements i s not s u r p r i s i n g .  fact,  in  i t is  congruence  that  an  examination  In  of the p o i n t s o f c o n f l i c t and  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y the causes o f the  t e n s i o n s t h a t occur i n the p o l i c y d e l i b e r a t i o n s which d e f i n e the institutions  r e q u i r e d by our s o c i a l arrangements.  For example,  i f those i n the C o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n p r o h i b i t i n t e r f e r e n c e with the i n d i v i d u a l , how i s i t p o s s i b l e t o c a r r y out the f a c i l i t a t i n g  and  inhibiting  opportunities intimate then  of  children?  question else  what  the  to  The  The  to  i t i s possible for  of  and  contention  child  in  t h a t i t must be p o s s i b l e to that  the  c o n s i s t e n t with  the  of the s o c i e t y , i s t h a t  the  are c l e a r and  action-guiding  tensions  experienced i n p o l i c y d e l i b e r a t i o n s about the  children,  justificatory resolve locus systems  arise  principles  from  systems  the  being  family  custody among other  general  of  tension  curriculum  j u s t i f i c a t o r y system i n such a way  child-raising  behalf  takes to be i n  in resolving this  responsibilities  advocacy  r e s u l t of my  tensions invoked.  treatment  between the d i f f e r e n t Therefore  i n order  the p o l i c y debate i t i s necessary to be c l e a r as to of  the which  theoretical are  being  of  i n t e r f e r e with c h i l d r e n ,  whether  difficulty  parent  child  a general  principles  as  can  other person (or remote p r o v i d e r )  and  determination,  interpret  endowment  i n the p o l i c y d e l i b e r a t i o n s about j u v e n i l e and  school  things.  the  to i n t e r f e r e with the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r on  that  i s evident  for  Once i t i s acknowledged t h a t some  arises  child's interest.  law,  necessary  p r o v i d e r of o p p o r t u n i t i e s  the  someone  actions  disagreement used  institutions.  53  to  between the  justify  the  to the  competing  basic  social  Notes on Chapter  2-1 are  Two  The n o t i o n s of L i b e r a l P o s i t i o n and Conservative taken  Nozick  from  as  Ennis.  representatives  suggested  by  Nozick  holders,  and  someone  must  the  first  of  Dr. J . Coombs.  notions and suggestions  2-2  (Ennis 1976,  p.8)  each The  of  these  i s , of course, my  (a)  these  share  Clearly,  be the f i r s t to s e i z e the o p p o r t u n i t y of s t a r t i n g association.  What an e n t i t l e m e n t to a i s anything but  Second P r i o r i t y second of  fair  and  Rule  to t h a t of maximizing the sum  opportunity  There are two an  clear.  p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e i s l e x i c a l l y p r i o r to the  efficiency and  principle.  was  responsibility.  managers of the p r o t e c t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n .  2-3  advantages;  positions  does not c o n s i d e r the r i g h t s of the owners,  protective  principle  The use of Rawls and  use t o which I have put  p r o t e c t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n means to Nozick  "The  Position  inequality  is  of  p r i o r to the d i f f e r e n c e  cases: of  opportunity  must  enhance  the  o p p o r t u n i t i e s of those with the l e s s e r o p p o r t u n i t y ; (b)  an  e x c e s s i v e r a t e of savings must on balance m i t i g a t e  the  burden  of  those b e a r i n g t h i s h a r d s h i p . "  p.302)  2-4  see note  (1-7) f o r Ennis'  cases. 54  (Rawls  1971,  2-5  Rawls d e s c r i b e s the primary goods as the b a s i s of one's  expectations.  (Rawls  1971,  pp.90-95)  The primary goods f a l l  i n t o the broad c a t e g o r i e s of r i g h t s  and l i b e r t i e s ,  and  I t i s i n the s a t i s f a c t i o n of  powers,  these  income  primary  long-term  and  goods  plan  of  wealth.  opportunities  w i t h i n the context of a person's life  that  the  good  rational  and happiness can be  achieved.  2-6  The f i r s t  fact  equivalent  substituted  the  p a r t of Rawls' second p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e i s i n t o the Pareto O p t i m a l i t y C o n d i t i o n . term  efficiency  for optimality.  Rawls has  (Rawls  1971,  pp.66-7) " S o c i a l and economic i n e q u a l i t i e s they  are  ...  consistent  are t o be arranged so t h a t  to the g r e a t e s t b e n e f i t of the l e a s t  with  the  just  advantaged,  savings p r i n c i p l e , . . . "  (Rawls  1971,  p.302) An e f f i c i e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n exists  no  possible  i s thus d e f i n e d as one where there  redistribution  t h a t improves  circumstance without another b e i n g disadvantaged,  2-7  person's  (see note  2-3)  Nozick on the l i m i t s of Rawls: "One  principle even  one  indication  of  the  stringency  of  Rawls  1  ... i s i t s i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s as a governing  within  (Nozick 1974,  a  family  of  individuals  p.167)  55  who  love one  difference principle another."  CHAPTER THREE  CHILD-RAISING UNDER NOZICK  3.1.  Focus o f A n a l y s i s of Nozick Does a s t r o n g f o r m u l a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s apply e q u a l l y  to  adults  given  f o r the  course  of  these of  and c h i l d r e n ?  i n t e r f e r e n c e s with c h i l d r e n which a r i s e i n the  child-raising?  questions  the  I f i t does, what j u s t i f i c a t i o n can be  In  t h i s chapter I seek answers t o  by r e i n t e r p r e t i n g Nozick's explanatory  emergence  o f the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n from the s t a t e of  nature as presented i n Anarchy, S t a t e , and U t o p i a Rather  than  holdings  using  and  account  Nozick's  perspective  of  (Nozick 1974).  the  person  with  p o s i t i o n s j u s t l y acquired, I take the p e r s p e c t i v e  of the person being r a i s e d from c h i l d h o o d who has no p o s s e s s i o n s other than those r e c e i v e d from some generous a d u l t employing the principle this  of  transfer.  examination  (Nozick 1974, p.151)  I s t r i v e t o be c o n s i s t e n t with the p r i n c i p l e s  and  arguments used by Nozick  the  individual  for  a  (3-1).  Given Nozick's emphasis on  w i t h i n the p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n there i s no need  justification  specific  kind  need  justify  to  In the process o f  of  my t a c t i c o f f o c u s s i n g a t t e n t i o n on a  o f i n d i v i d u a l - the c h i l d . the  course  There i s , however, a  o f my argument s i n c e i t does not  f o l l o w the same path as N o z i c k ' s . Nozick's  p l a n f o r arguing the case f o r the minimal 56  state i s  that  of  building,  grew  from  the  piece  'state  by p i e c e , the s t o r y o f how the s t a t e  of  nature'  to  a  social  arrangement  i n v o l v i n g the l e a s t p o s s i b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e with i n d i v i d u a l s . principles  invoked  by  Nozick  The  are p r i n c i p l e s which are used t o  j u s t i f y a c t u a l e n t i t l e m e n t s t o h o l d i n g s and p o s i t i o n s .  Nozick's  i n v i s i b l e hand mechanism i s taken t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c r e a t i n g the  state.  emphasize  Nozick  the  arrangement pursuit  uses  lack  that  of  the  evolves  when  i n d i v i d u a l s are engaged i n the  o f the ownership o f h o l d i n g s and p o s i t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o  Nozick,  between  hand e x p l a n a t i o n t o  u n i f i e d i n t e n t i o n t o c r e a t e the s o c i a l  the p r i n c i p l e s of e n t i t l e m e n t . to  invisible  In the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , a c c o r d i n g  there i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r an asymmetry o f power  the  individual  and  the  group  which  j u s t i f y the a p p r o p r i a t i o n of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s My p l a n f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g Nozick  can be used t o  just entitlements .  i n terms of c h i l d - r a i s i n g i s  to make the assumption t h a t the strong f o r m u l a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l rights  used  by Nozick  a p p l i e s t o c h i l d r e n , and then t o ask the  q u e s t i o n - how does an i n d i v i d u a l enter i n t o the j u s t h i s t o r y o f the  society?  The t a c t i c I w i l l use t o answer t h i s q u e s t i o n i s  to range through Anarchy, S t a t e , and U t o p i a , e x t r a c t i n g s e c t i o n s of  Nozick's  distort  argument,  the  ensuring  significance  that  the e x t r a c t i o n does not  o f the p r i n c i p l e s being invoked, and  r e c o n s t r u c t i n g an argument i n the way I t h i n k Nozick would i f he were t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y address with  respect  relationships individual  to  redistribution  child-raising.  between  and  the and  the q u e s t i o n o f c h i l d r e n ' s r i g h t s  various group,  By  pairs  of  entitlement  compensation, 57  from  examining concepts  and  logical  such as the  aggression,  and  the p e r s p e c t i v e of the  person the  being  raised  Nozickean  children  are  identify  more  questions  from childhood,  principles  governing  included.  by  clarify  i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s so t h a t  This i n t e r p r e t i v e analysis w i l l a l s o  precisely  raised  I w i l l attempt t o  the  Ennis  locus of the e m p i r i c a l and within  the  context  of  value  Nozick s 1  r e l a t i v e l y complete p r e s e n t a t i o n of the Conservative p o s i t i o n . I to for  will  a l s o attempt to c l a r i f y Nozick's  entitlement  show t h a t Nozick can be understood i n such a way the  facilitating  and  inhibiting  a  tentative  clarification  of  solution  Nozick's  allowance f o r what I c a l l a of  adjustment  participate  in  opportunity  for  them  will  permits some  arise.  arising  the  I have a l s o  from  a  further  p r i n c i p l e of compensation which make 'clause of adjustment.'  children  kind  the  as to allow  a c t i o n s r e q u i r e d by  c h i l d r a i s e r endowing the c h i l d with o p p o r t u n i t i e s . proposed  theory  to  insist  This  that  clause  they  must  of i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p so t h a t an  exercise  of the p r i n c i p l e of t r a n s f e r to  In a sense t h i s c l a u s e i s f e e b l e i n t h a t the  e x i s t e n c e of an i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p does not ensure a t r a n s f e r of that  holdings  or  there  p o s i t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e I am not  proposing  w i l l be any power c r e a t e d f o r i n d i v i d u a l s or groups  because  of  the  another  sense,  existence the  of  the  introduction  r e l a t i o n s h i p . However, i n of the r i g h t of the c h i l d to  make a c l a i m because of her deprived p o s i t i o n can be seen as powerful  since  distribution. proposed the  introduces  In my  that rights  it  the p o s s i b i l i t y of a p a t t e r n of  o p i n i o n the problem t h a t e x i s t s without  'clarification'  crack  individual  it  of  the p r i n c i p l e of compensation  introduces  locates  a  too  in  Nozick's  formulation  my and of  s i g n i f i c a n t i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n the 58  Conservative the  position.  derivation  Conservative this  the  principles  p o l i t i c a l philosophy  of  child-raising  from  t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o explore  Nozick's Worrisome P o i n t s The  main  general aware  of  that  in  t h i s essay i s not t o take up Nozick's  the  h i s general  required  in  to  theoretical  claims  are  reassures  arguments,  securely  that  transitions,  strain,  attention  us  I  i d e n t i f y the connections  p o i n t s and the i n t e r f e r e n c e s  based  "at those p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t s  I  i n my  comment, or a t l e a s t draw the reader's  i s a t a p o i n t where Nozick  compensation  h i s 'points of  f o l l o w Nozick's assumptions.  t o what makes me uneasy." (Nozick  of  and  assumptions and so f o r t h , where I f e e l  t r y to  introduction  i n order  I d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the p o i n t s  As much as p o s s i b l e I w i l l  Nozick  the  I t i s necessary, however, t o be  attempt  child-raising,  Nozick  worry.'  the  of  what Nozick i d e n t i f i e s as ' s e n s i t i v e ' p o i n t s  ensure  which  intent  t h e o r e t i c a l 'worries.'  between  it  of  inconsistency.  3.2.  to  I t i s o n l y through a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  a  1974, p . x i v )  Since  ' f e e l s the s t r a i n ' t h a t I propose  clarification  of  the  p r i n c i p l e of  am reasonably c o n f i d e n t t h a t Nozick would  allow  my r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s p o s i t i o n . Nozick First,  he  moral  identifies points  basis  non-infringement argument.  three  out of of  that  general there  individual individual  theoretical  'worries.'  i s no p r e c i s e theory rights  rights  even  though  the  forms the b a s i s of h i s  L i k e Nozick, I w i l l assume t h a t there  i s some moral  b a s i s f o r i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s which c o u l d be developed given 59  of the  time.  Second, of  Nozick  makes no  retributive  form  of  worry can  be  Third,  Nozick's of  the  This  a  major  child-raising  snag  within  a  discussion  of c h i l d r e n  distributive concerned  me  i n the  justice.  the this  statement of  the  justice.  principles  It is precisely  "More-Than-Minimal-State"  interesting  some  to determine the  child/intimate  kind  However,  establishing  the  of this  to engage i n a r a t h e r roundabout  to have the  without  with  unravelling  Nozickean s t a t e .  I t would be  triad  a precise  theory of d i s t r i b u t i v e  in  requires  i t i s possible  provider  lacks  tripartite  which  which  of  time being.  argument  difficulty  p.280)  special  not with r e t r i b u t i v e punishment of c h i l d r e n ,  principles  1974,  concern i s with a  which i s r e q u i r e d f o r the b e n e f i t  ignored f o r the  is  j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a theory  punishment. Since my  compensation  less well-off,  statement or  of in  that  there  extent  theory  chapter, I am  of only  must at l e a s t be  the  o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a b i p a r t i t e theory of d i s t r i b u t i v e j u s t i c e to invoked  within  the  confines  required for c h i l d - r a i s i n g . of  the  symmetry  prohibits  any  in  the  next  asymmetry ability  of  significant  to  i n t i m a t e and  chapter, power  f o r the  The  the  which  between  intimate  i n d i v i d u a l and  differentiate  between  remote p r o v i d e r s . considers the  two  where  the  individual  choices.  60  position the  the  group power  As w i l l be  k i n d s of p r o v i d e r s ,  is  seen  the p o s s i b i l i t y of  group to have power over any not  be  relationship  importance to Nozick's  of power between the attempt  possessed by the  of  to  provider/remote  tripartite this  (Nozick  an the  i n d i v i d u a l i s only making  rational  In that  the remainder of t h i s chapter I w i l l present an is  analysis  intended to demonstrate t h a t the C o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n  necessarily  includes  a  mechanism f o r a l l o w i n g  a less well-off  person t o e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p with another person i n such a way  t h a t there w i l l be  will  a re-distribution.  The  new  distribution  be a b e t t e r approximation of the d i s t r i b u t i o n i n d i c a t e d  the  hypothetical  society.  3.3.  story  that  has  been  To t h a t extent i t w i l l be  History Nozick  and  argues  used  to  justify  by the  a patterned d i s t r i b u t i o n .  Fable in  favor  of  establishing  a  social  arrangement  is  Since  q u e s t i o n s which a r i s e concerning Nozick's arguments  give  some rise  history,  j u s t through the use  that  to it  the is  possibility  are  'historical'  of  a  of the  three  The  'historical'  possible  explanation  story i s applied.  and  the  an  a c t u a l s o c i e t y to which  the  f i r s t r e l a t i o n s h i p i s t h a t where the  society  is  a l s o j u s t to the  principles  history  which  are  that  between  of an a c t u a l s o c i e t y i s j u s t .  the  hypothetical  explanation.  relationships  history  determine  different  necessary to understand the p o s s i b i l i t i e s  a r i s e from Nozick's use There  of h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r i e s .  In t h i s case, the  real  actual  extent t h a t the p r i n c i p l e s used to just.  determine  the  In the Nozickean s o c i e t y justness  of a h i s t o r y are  the the  f o l l o w i n g three p r i n c i p l e s : 1.  The  acquired  p r i n c i p l e of a c q u i s i t i o n - where a h o l d i n g by  appropriating  person i s e n t i t l e d to the 2.  The  principle  of  an unheld t h i n g , the  has  been  receiving  holding.  transfer 61  - a person may  transfer  t h e i r entitlement 3.  The  is  just  to a holding  t o another person.  p r i n c i p l e of d i s t r i b u t i v e j u s t i c e - a d i s t r i b u t i o n i f everyone  is  entitled  to  the h o l d i n g s they  possess. (Nozick 1974, pp.150-3) Clearly, these  where the a c t u a l h i s t o r y of a s o c i e t y has  principles,  holdings  followed  i t n e c e s s a r i l y has as j u s t a d i s t r i b u t i o n of  and p o s i t i o n s as i t ever had.  I take i t t h a t Nozick"s  c l a i m i s t h a t a s o c i e t y with a j u s t d i s t r i b u t i o n o f h o l d i n g s and positions the  i s necessarily a just society.  consideration  hypothetical state  of  of  an  The s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r  historical  explanation  p o i n t b e f o r e which there were no t r a n s a c t i o n s  nature.  that - the  A c c o r d i n g t o Nozick's argument, i f a s o c i e t y  i s as j u s t as the s t a t e o f nature then i t i s n e c e s s a r i l y  it  is  just.  The  second r e l a t i o n s h i p suggested by Nozick i s the one where  is  not  possible  to  even imagine a s t o r y t h a t e x p l a i n s  an  a c t u a l s o c i e t y t h a t maintains Nozick's p r i n c i p l e of d i s t r i b u t i v e justice. just just  Since  as  the  i t i s c l e a r t h a t such a s o c i e t y cannot be as  s t a t e o f nature i t i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t i t i s not a  society. Nozick p r e s e n t s the t h i r d p o s s i b l e  r e l a t i o n s h i p as f o l l o w s :  "More complicated are the cases where the a c t u a l h i s t o r y o f a  society  is  unjust  yet  c o u l d have l e d t o i t s c u r r e n t to  the  particular  under i t ) . " Before history last  possible  structure  distribution  just history  (though not perhaps  o f h o l d i n g s or p o s i t i o n s  (Nozick 1974, p.293)  examining  and  some h y p o t h e t i c a l  the  relationship  between  hypothetical  a c t u a l s o c i a l arrangements posed by Nozick i n t h i s relationship  i t i s important t o look behind the 62  statement to l o c a t e a reason f o r h i s p u t t i n g so much emphasis on the h i s t o r y of e n t i t l e m e n t s . assumption  that  entitlements can  it  for  is  Nozick  possible  a given s o c i e t y .  must be o p e r a t i n g to  determine  The  a  from the  h i s t o r y of  h i s t o r y of  entitlements  o n l y be an accumulation of r e p o r t s about episodes i n v o l v i n g  individuals.  A h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r y , t h e r e f o r e , can be  more  than  a  state  of  with  Nozick's  nothing  s t o r y with an ending t h a t approximates the  a s o c i e t y and which uses episodes t h a t are basic  principles.  If  consistent  actual  episodes  involving  real  individuals  then  first  r e l a t i o n s h i p between an a c t u a l j u s t h i s t o r y  the  the  v i o l a t e one  the  actual  of Nozick's p r i n c i p l e s  r e s u l t i n g s o c i e t y mentioned above does not h o l d s i n c e  i s an i n j u s t i c e i n the a c t u a l h i s t o r y of the s o c i e t y . allows  f o r another s t o r y t h a t does not v i o l a t e h i s  and  there  I f Nozick  distributive  p r i n c i p l e to c a r r y an e q u i v a l e n t weight to the a c t u a l s t o r y , r e s u l t i s two Since  d i f f e r e n t explanations  Nozick  hypothetical  does  history  not it  give  the  f o r the same episode. examples of what he means by  i s necessary to provide  our own.  The  f o l l o w i n g i s an example: May  has  she  stole  Mon  a  b e a u t i f u l diamond. it  hypothetical  used  to  the  a c t u a l h i s t o r y i s that  The h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r y i s t h a t  gave her the diamond.  This  to  from Mon.  The  story  (and a l l the e q u i v a l e n t  e x p l a i n the s o c i e t y of May  show t h a t t h e i r s o c i e t y i s j u s t . diamond  t o May,  I f Mon  anyway, would t h e i r  conclude t h a t May's and Nozick l i s t s  and Mon)  are not had  are  sufficient  decided  ' s o c i e t y ' be  Mon s s o c i e t y i s j u s t i s 1  ones that  to  give  just?  To  problematic.  a s e r i e s of p r i n c i p l e s f o r d e c i d i n g on the more 63  complicated case of the unjust  actual  principle  history.  holds  hypothetical  that  story impact  the  society  concerns actual  the  pp.293-4)  differences unjust  between  of  just.  The  first  the  just  a c t u a l h i s t o r y have had  is essentially just.  If their  consent  all  persons  rights  then  The  requires  structure  could  development  as  the  who  are  subjected  a r e s u l t of the  actual  aspect of to  the  s o c i e t y can be  arisen.  If  the  and  i f the i n d i v i d u a l s who  'perfect', The  then  the  possible  would be  individuals,  can  still  be  third the  process of pattern  required  to  do not have to  be  hypothetical  t h i r d p r i n c i p l e , while not  a  considered  of the process by which  s t r u c t u r e i n the h y p o t h e t i c a l way  unreasonably accepted.  evaluation  the  institutional  the s t r u c t u r e i s b e t t e r than the a c t u a l  development  develop  an  have  of  no  second p r i n c i p l e  In the case where no consent i s r e q u i r e d then the  principle  the  on the a c t u a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e , then  history.  structure  of  the  1974,  the consent of the members to the unjust  limitation  of  (Nozick if  and  significant actual  just hypothetical history overriding  story  r e q u i r i n g the  can  be  consent  r e l a t e d to i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s as  s p e c i f i e d by the moral s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t s i n f o r c e . As  explained  side-constraint  the  the  scope  chapter,  may  of  the  prohibits  the  (Nozick 1974,  the  not  p.34)  s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t with which he  philosophy use  p.33)  s a c r i f i c i n g of one  b e n e f i t of another. (Nozick 1974,  "Political persons  previous  separate e x i s t e n c e s .  side-constraint  for  the  moral  i n f o r c e i n the Nozickean s t a t e a r i s e s from the  r e c o g n i t i o n of our moral  in  Nozick  The person limits  i s concerned.  i s concerned only with c e r t a i n ways t h a t others;  primarily physically 64  aggressing  against  them." (Nozick 1974,  Using  the  "end-state to  view",  proclaim  p.34)  The  root  libertarian  p.33)  constraint.  i s the use  against  (Nozick  following  against  it  is  effectively  with  others.  children  wielded.  removes by  way  any  The  of a p h y s i c a l  justify  generally  venerable  an  (3-2),  drop  is  can  that  each  child  i n h i b i t i n g the  children child's  be  society.  In order to  must e i t h e r f a l l back on c h i l d r e n from the  libertarian  or  child  the  category of  side-constraint  on  e s t a b l i s h t h a t some r e l a t i o n s h i p  ' p a t e r n a l i s t i c - l i k e ' actions  preferable  without  r i g h t s to n o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e .  It  to e s t a b l i s h a s t r o n g e r c l a i m  -  the r i g h t s of the r e c i p i e n t are being i n t e r f e r e d  ' p a t e r n a l i s t i c - l i k e ' actions  propose  compensation  the  with e i t h e r p a r t y ' s  however,  with i f the I  allows  our  we  omitting  aggression,  which  interfering  or  in  interference of  paternalistic  that  accepted  tradition  individuals  would,  facilitating  an  aggression.  f o r the deviant purposes t h a t generate t r u e  such  exists  of  the  for  purposes  is  including  basis  for  abuse)  the  libertarian  the occurrence of p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n a g a i n s t  (not  from  Paternalistic  However,  actions  him 1974,  or t h r e a t of f o r c e f o r the b e n e f i t of  whom  side-constraint  the  leads  p r o h i b i t s a l l aggression  aggression  interference  an argument t h a t  an  t h e r e are d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s with separate 1974,  paternalistic  approach i n s t e a d of  l i b e r t a r i a n side-constraint,  (Nozick  person  full  "that  aggression  side-constraint"  Nozick c o n s t r u c t s  the full  idea  lives"  "moral  p.32)  is  which in  a  clarification  will  which  of  do not occur.  The  Nozick's p r i n c i p l e of  at l e a s t a l l o w f o r an a s s o c i a t i o n  an i n t i m a t e , 65  best  n o n - p o l i t i c a l structure  for can  function where  the  purpose of which i s b r i n g i n g  'consenting  to  the  actual  the c h i l d to a p o i n t  political  structure'  is  guided by  the  meaningful. Nozick's  argument  libertarian others. that  that  our  side-constraint  (3-3)  This  prohibits  seems c o n t r a r y  c h i l d - r a i s i n g requires  that Nor  which must a l s o be children  do  we  the  history  of  relationship actual is  the  considered.  some  between  the  the  described  for  actions  do not u s u a l l y assume of p o s s e s s i o n s . those  I f however,  the  actual distributions  s o c i e t y i t must a l s o  future  hypothetical  generations.  be The  s t o r y or f a b l e and  the  n e c e s s a r i l y so s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d .  It  ramifications  distribution  inhibiting  notion  capable of a c q u i r i n g  j u s t i c e of our  d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s not  in  We  j u s t i f i e s our  allocations  against  commonsense  k i n d of a s s i s t a n c e .  which  be the b a s i s of the basis  to our  aggression  There i s another commonsense  c h i l d r e n t o be  without  hypothetical  all  born with t h e i r e n t i t l e m e n t  consider  possessions  must  are  must be  f a c i l i t a t i n g and  which i n v o l v e p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n . notion  actions  of  by the  the  discrepancy  f a b l e and  between  the  the a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n  t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e t o r e a l i z e the method of c l a r i f y i n g Nozick's p r i n c i p l e of  3.4.  Misallocation In  the  compensation.  Nozick's q u o t a t i o n  possible  above (Nozick 1974,  history  and  the . a c t u a l s o c i e t a l s t r u c t u r e s , Nozick accepts that a s t a t e  may  be  and  just  positions  even is  relationships  p.293) concerning  though  its  between a h y p o t h e t i c a l  a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of h o l d i n g s  d i f f e r e n t from t h a t s p e c i f i e d by the  hypothetical  history  used to j u s t i f y the  questions  relative  hypothetical  justness  of  Several  t o t h i s acceptance of a d i s c r e p a n c y between  and  consideration.  s t r u c t u r e of t h a t s o c i e t y .  actual  individual  entitlements  require  Is the acceptance of a d i s c r e p a n c y between the  a c t u a l h o l d i n g s and  the h y p o t h e t i c a l  the  holdings  equivalent  to  r e p l a c i n g the a c t u a l s o c i e t y with a  hypothetical  society?  In  order to ensure t h a t t h i s i s not the  case, i t i s  necessary  to  identify  misallocation general  of  effect  some  holdings. of  my  hypothetical  clarification 'clause  that  can  a j u s t s o c i e t y , i f a d i s c r e p a n c y between a c t u a l  and  entitlements  respect  to  i s acceptable?  the  individuals  Let us assume t h a t in  terms  of  do  the ways c h i l d r e n f i t i n t o  because explained his  hypothetical.  holdings  and  positions  of  dimensions.  ( c a l l e d SOPmore) has  more  l e g i t i m i z e d by  Let us a l s o assume, as does Nozick,  (perhaps  separable."  connected (Nozick  individual  1  that  with a t h i n g ) which  1974,  rights  are  p.281) greater  (3-4)  a  as are  Then  than can  be  a j u s t h i s t o r i c a l s t o r y , SOPmore cannot e s t a b l i s h  entitlement  hypothetical  the  conceive of ownership as having a t h i n g , but  SOPmore s by  actual  'Some Other Person'  rights  theoretically  attempt to answer  h o l d i n g s or p o s i t i o n than can be  not  possessing  The  ' m i s a l l o c a t i o n ' w i l l have two  just h i s t o r i c a l story. "people  of Nozick's p r i n c i p l e of  'misallocations'  f o r c h i l d r e n , of the  Nozickean s o c i e t y ' s h i s t o r y , a c t u a l or  specific  the  What are  t h i s q u e s t i o n w i l l a l s o introduce  With  correcting  of adjustment.'  implications  exist within  for  As w i l l become c l e a r , t h i s i s the  compensation which I l a b e l the the  mechanism  to  story  his  excess  which  will 67  rights. entitle  There i s no SOPmore to the  just  excess  rights  represented  Nozick's  assertion  holdings  and  arises  by  h i s h o l d i n g s or p o s i t i o n .  that  the  positions  from  the  details  may  vary  hypothetical  of  from  history  Nonetheless,  the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a t  opens  the door to the  e x i s t e n c e of the p o s s e s s i o n of r i g h t s i n excess of e n t i t l e m e n t . To need  illustrate to  assume  SOPless), who  that  second there  dimension of ' m i s a l l o c a t i o n ' is  'Some  Other  Person'  by  the  just  same  historical  society.  t a l e t h a t was  Furthermore,  rights  which  Since  possession  where  SOPmore  belonging  (called  to  SOPless of a  SOPless  f i n d t h a t one of  should have, SOPmore has i n excess.  rights  owns  a p p l i e d to  u s i n g the t h e o r e t i c a l  s e p a r a b i l i t y of r i g h t s c o n d i t i o n from above, we the  we  i n terms of h o l d i n g s and p o s i t i o n has l e s s than i s  legitimized SOPmore's  the  i s ownership, we have a s i t u a t i o n  right  which  could  be  thought  o f as  even though SOPmore d i d not take i t from  SOPless.  Nozick's response t o t h i s k i n d of dilemma i s t o r e s o r t  to  kind  some  SOPless. for  of  argument  that  results  i n compensation f o r  The p r i n c i p l e of compensation determines some method  compensating  interference. compensation  an  A is  individual  for  risk,  damages,  or  c l e a r case f o r the need f o r the p r i n c i p l e of that  i n which one person has more as a d i r e c t  r e s u l t of another person's l a c k .  I w i l l c a l l t h i s aspect of the  principle  direct-link  of  individual of  benefits  compensation  direct some  compensation  is  the  clause:  a t the d i r e c t expense of another some form required.  In the case where there i s no  l i n k between SOPmore and SOPless i t seems t h a t payment  SOPmore  has  from  where an  SOPmore  is  requiring  an i n f r i n g e m e n t of h i s r i g h t s .  a c q u i r e d h i s excess r i g h t w i t h i n a s o c i e t y t h a t i s 68  just  and  else's  therefore  sake  forced  is  an  non-interference.  removal  infringement  The c o r r e c t i o n  i n order t o make the s o c i e t y just  by  the  fable.  o f t h a t r i g h t f o r someone right  to  i s not r e q u i r e d  j u s t - i t i s a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d as  And  yet,  i f as a r e s u l t of SOPmore's the r i g h t t o SOPless w i t h  e x p e c t a t i o n of compensation, SOPmore appears t o have made the  state  more j u s t s i n c e SOPless' e n t i t l e m e n t of r i g h t s  complete.  tale  f o r the  t a l e f o r SOPless. reallocation  society  i n a just  r e a l i z e that a  o f SOPmore's p o s s e s s i o n c o u l d r e s u l t i n a more j u s t  then  SOPmore  to act 'philanthropically.'  (Nozick  and y e t i t r e s u l t s  I f a group o f SOPless' f r i e n d s  society  no  i s now more  SOPmore's p h i l a n t h r o p y i s not r e q u i r e d f o r the j u s t  historical  is  SOPmore's  of the e r r o r  p h i l a n t h r o p i c s p i r i t SOPmore t r a n s f e r s no  of  i t would  legitimate  way  seem t o be necessary f o r them t o f o r c e  to  arrive  Nozick argues  possession  of  rights  by  "there  a t the asymmetry i n r i g h t s "  1974, p. 276) between i n d i v i d u a l s  t h a t the admission of 'more or l e s s  that  and groups.  I t seems  j u s t s o c i e t i e s ' based on the  legitimate  versus  illegitimate  r i g h t - h o l d e r s i n t r o d u c e s the need f o r a major r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of Nozick's  arguments.  reconsideration so,  I  between  just  than  undertake  I w i l l simply attempt some t i n k e r i n g .  introduce  parenthetical  Rather  the  'adjustment  situation  in  hypothetical  clause'  to  e x p l a n a t i o n s quoted above.  69  unjust  a  In doing  cover Nozick's  the p r o b l e m a t i c t h i r d and  such  actual  relationship historical  3.5.  Adjustment Clause Adjustments  principle  within  of  reallocations  the  compensation.  They  identifiable  agent  benefited  from  damage.  There  who  both  caused  is  available  i t , and  a r e , however,  excess of h o l d i n g s .  the  senses  in  the  is  a  whole  class  of  others  unjust  to  allocation,  compensate f o r the  available  who  have a  In order t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between  on the p a r t o f both p a r t i e s who are i n v o l v e d  relative in  the  o f compensation and t o maintain the primacy of  rights  consider  There  are t y p i f i e d by the f a c t t h a t there i s no  relative  individual  s t a t e are governed by the  which are not i n c l u d e d i n Nozick's e x p l a n a t i o n o f  compensation.  two  minimal  imbalance  detail  a  of second  holdings, part  i t i s necessary t o  to  the  principle  of  compensation which I s h a l l c a l l the c l a u s e of adjustment. Clause o f Adjustment Where an a c t u a l s o c i e t y has a j u s t , h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r i c a l s t o r y , but where the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f h o l d i n g s and p o s i t i o n s varies where and  from a  t h a t which can be e x p l a i n e d by the s t o r y , and  person i s aware that he has an excess o f h o l d i n g s  positions  (or the r e s u l t a n t r i g h t s ) , then t h a t person  has no r i g h t t o compensation from some other person who has a  matching  shortage  hypothetical that  story,  holding  exercises intimate  the  or  which  cannot  be  justified  by the  and who i n order t o gain ownership of position  right  relationship  of  (and  the  association  which  will  resultant  i n order t o form an  probably  lead  person w i t h the excess t r a n s f e r r i n g the h o l d i n g . 70  right)  t o the  The  clause  requirement  of  adjustment  which  relationships implication  is  or  places  limit  emerges  from  (Nozick  1974,  Nozick's  that  comes  initiator's case,  where  holds  the  illustrates as  must  the  right  evidenced  with  "the  a  voluntary engage  1974,  p.264)  In our  h o l d e r i s not e n t i t l e d t o the r i g h t out  as  a  result  of  the  he  the s t o r y which  that  he  or  i s "unsure of t h i s p o i n t "  s t r u c t u r e of r i g h t s to engage i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Nozick  1974,  p.264)  Given the d i f f i c u l t y i n  j u s t when i t allows  injustices,  nature  in  hook of another's  be put out by the r i g h t h o l d e r .  admits  society  acknowledged  (Nozick  concerning  by the u n j u s t i f i a b l e ownership of the h o l d i n g s  others."  calling  meet"  The  the hook i s connected to a m i s a l l o c a t e d r i g h t  Nozick  concerning  to  comes  that  position.  out  hook  hook  'hook'  p.264)  conjecture  ' r i g h t s with hooks' i s t h a t "the corresponding right  on the  p a r t of the v o l u n t a r y r i g h t to engage i n  transactions.  that  a  of  it  seems  exchanges  transactions  or  f o r the c o n t i n u a t i o n of  reasonable  falling  to  within  relationships  in  limit  the  the r i g h t s to the  way  I have  suggested i n the c l a u s e of adjustment. The  requirement  transaction  that  the  right  to r e f u s e to engage i n a  be made c o n d i t i o n a l upon the  justness of the a c t u a l  d i s t r i b u t i o n of h o l d i n g s or p o s i t i o n s (and the r e s u l t a n t r i g h t s ) brings  up  arguments  the  While  of  of  patterned  justice.  have been c l e a r l y aimed at developing  historical, clause  spectre  non-patterned adjustment  Nozick  justification  for  Where  Nozick's  the case f o r an the  state,  c l e a r l y i n t r o d u c e s the p a t t e r n e d  the  aspect.  lumps t r a n s a c t i o n s together with r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n  h i s arguments, i t i s arguable  t h a t t h i s r e s u l t s i n some s t r a i n e d  examples smooth  that use over  intimate  some  our assumptions about f i s c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s to of  the  relationships  that  problems  that  are  s p e c i a l to  the  result  from  the e x e r c i s e of  the  r i g h t of a s s o c i a t i o n . Because seems  my  rather  prime  concern i s with c h i l d r e n , and because i t  strange t o t a l k of c h i l d r e n being  i n v o l v e d i n the  kinds of t r a n s a c t i o n s with which Nozick i s concerned, i t appears to  be  reasonable  to  limit  my  a t t e n t i o n at t h i s p o i n t to  r i g h t to engage i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . my  discussion  the  A d m i t t e d l y t h i s l i m i t a t i o n of  does not r e s o l v e the problem of my  introducing a  clause t h a t appears to e n t a i l r e d i s t r i b u t i o n . Since, however, i t i s a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a t i s suggested by Nozick's j u s t t a l e , by  some  independently  possible  to  argue  compensation For my of  that  process  there  occurring  is  some  within  kind  of  compulsory  be  the t r a n s a c t i o n . is a  (3-5) clause  which causes a hook to emerge which r e s u l t s i n a  r a t h e r than a v o l u n t a r y  SOPmore,  relationship  i t may  'invisible'  purposes, however, I w i l l maintain t h a t there  adjustment  and  determined j u s t d i s t r i b u t i o n ,  not  in  case  described  e n t i t l e d to and  r e l a t i o n s h i p between SOPless  SOPmore's  possessions  above ( i . e . SOPmore has  the  more than he i s in  case SOPless r e a l i z e s t h a t the imbalance e x i s t s , as d e s c r i b e d  by  just  just,  and  engage out  in  that  tale  l e s s than she  in  i s e n t i t l e d to) and  the  SOPless has  are  t h a t i s used to prove t h a t SOPmore's s o c i e t y i s  i n case SOPless puts out the hook which her relationships legitimizes. the  I t i s important to p o i n t  c l a u s e of adjustment does not get hung up on  o b j e c t i o n t h a t Nozick o u t l i n e s concerning "The  r i g h t to  other kinds  the  of r i g h t s .  major o b j e c t i o n t o speaking of everyone's having a r i g h t to  v a r i o u s t h i n g s such as e q u a l i t y of o p p o r t u n i t y , l i f e , and  enforcing  substructure people 1974,  this of  may  who  things  have  p.238)  right,  rights  i s that  and  these  materials  and so on,  'rights' require a  and a c t i o n s ; and other  and e n t i t l e m e n t s over these."  (Nozick  In my s t o r y , the j u s t t a l e has p o i n t e d out t o a l l  have l i s t e n e d t o i t t h a t the present possessors  do not have  entitlements. It  i s my  necessary in  contention  part  that  the  adjustment  o f the C o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n .  clause  Without i t those  the Conservative p o s i t i o n can c l a i m t h a t the f a b l e  the  actual  proof the  possessions  of  their  justifies  just  a  entitlements  justifies  t h e i r s o c i e t y when i t i s used as a  t h a t the s o c i e t y i s j u s t . fable  is a  But they must a l s o accept t h a t  society  where some people do not have  and t h a t there are people who are not  r e q u i r e d t o c o r r e c t an o v e r - e n t i t l e m e n t i n order t o e l i m i n a t e an under-entitlement. I t seems t o be the case t h a t where a h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r y i s used  to  cases  justify  where  actual  described  by  not  had  have  an a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n there w i l l probably be  the  possessions fable.  are  not  i n accord with t h a t  The person who i s short-changed  the o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c q u i r e what should have been  a v a i l a b l e a c c o r d i n g t o the h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r y . kinds  of  obvious  reasons  of  principle  which  in  will  f o r such  a  i s youth.  connection  lack  There are many  of o p p o r t u n i t y , the most  While I am u s i n g the adjustment  with  child-raising  i t c o u l d a l s o be  a p p l i e d t o any other case o f l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y t o a c q u i r e what the  justifying  actual  h i s t o r y a l l o c a t e s t o some person other than the  possessor. 73  3.6.  Joining Adults,  Up  we  may  assume,  be  a j u s t t a l e and the a c t u a l a l l o c a t i o n of h o l d i n g s  them. the  the  the  described  difficulty  between  t o understand  of  and p o s i t i o n s .  discrepancy  able  implications by  the  will  distributions  C h i l d r e n , on the other hand, are l i k e l y to  understanding  when  such a m i s a l l o c a t i o n a p p l i e s to  The f a c t of c h i l d r e n having d i f f i c u l t y significance  considerations  of  of  misallocations  how  have  children  is  i n understanding  related  to  Nozick's  f i t into society's history -  a c t u a l or h y p o t h e t i c a l . I  start  involvement  with of  development  the  most  youngsters  in  Nozick's  explication just  tale  of  the  of  the  of the more-than-minimal s t a t e which i s the c l o s e s t  r e l a t i v e of the modern s t a t e . context  extensive  in  which  Nozick  I t i s important t o understand  is  working  at  this  point  the  in his  argument. "Is  there  the  (minimal)  via, at  only  a  shall  1974,  state  from  the s t a t e of nature t o a r r i v e ,  more c l o s e l y resembling a modern s t a t e .  continuation  illuminate people  t o continue our s t o r y of the o r i g i n of  l e g i t i m a t e steps which v i o l a t e no one's r i g h t s '  something  such  I  some way  of  the  story  possible,  it  Were would  essential  aspects of the more e x t e n s i v e s t a t e s  everywhere now  l i v e under l a y i n g bare t h e i r nature.  o f f e r a modest e f f o r t i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . " (Nozick  p.276)  74  3.6.1.  Payback  There first  are  is  an  two  components  attempt  to  establish  the  positive  internalization  of  activities  the p r i n c i p l e  with  of b e n e f i t s .  Nozick  internalization  concludes  of  t o Nozick's modest e f f o r t . the  balance  The  between the  externalities  (3-6) o f  (strong or weak) of f u l l payback from h i s examination  a l l positive  externalities"  of the " f u l l (Nozick 1974,  p.280) t h a t "the advantages of l i v i n g under t h i s scheme (of f u l l internalization benefits  others  you  f o r the  The  extent  efficiency namely the  of  positive  provide  benefits  externalities)  would  not be the  you, but r a t h e r the payback they give you p r o v i d e them." (Nozick 1974, p.281)  o f payback i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h a t which s u f f i c e s f o r in  "that agent  the  marketplace,  as  determined  by  economists;  there be s u f f i c i e n t payback t o cover the c o s t s t o of  externalities,  performing  so  that  the  the  activity  activity  with  will  the  be c a l l e d  positive forth."  (Nozick 1974, p.281) /An kind  example of  hook' the  payback  proposed agent  positions  interests  to  tale.  comes from c o n s i d e r a t i o n of what  would apply i n the case of the 'self-engaging above  performing  externalities,  just  of  namely SOPless  i n the c l a u s e o f adjustment. the  activity  with  a l l o w i n g the r e a l l o c a t i o n  SOPmore i s  the  positive  of h o l d i n g s or  who i s e n t i t l e d t o them a c c o r d i n g t o the  Nozick has s t i p u l a t e d  t h a t SOPmore i s not e n t i t l e d  to any compensation, s i n c e again, a c c o r d i n g t o the j u s t t a l e , he is  not e n t i t l e d t o the h o l d i n g s or p o s i t i o n  right.  The  which represent the  q u e s t i o n which remains i s : why would SOPmore not 75  restrain  the  possibility  'self-engaging t h a t , because the  has  been  enacted by  The  only reason t h a t the  the  just  t a l e has  deficiency used in  to the  the  r i g h t to engage i n a  are  involved.  just society  up  the  Assuming  relationship  less  well-off? i s that  excess with  I f the  the  the  just tale i s  t h a t i t e x p l a i n s , then i t i s  of each i n d i v i d u a l actual  to f i n d the  t a l e which most  d i s t r i b u t i o n of h o l d i n g s  t h a t no other more 'accurate' t a l e i s  and on  h o r i z o n , then i t seems reasonable to suggest t h a t SOPmore's  payback i s the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the to  end  i d e n t i f i e d a matching of the  approximates  positions.  order to e l i m i n a t e  'self-engaging hook' comes out  i n the persons who  interests  in  SOPless, SOPmore may  maintain the  closely  hook'  which  further  he  actually  payback  explanation. fuller  the  as  the  of  for  with  which  rights  from the  w i l l be  rather  rights  than l o o k i n g  the  SOPless'  entitled  security  payback  entitled,  rights  Combined  compliment  payback that  for  is  t a l e which secures the  t a l e provides  interest  for no  i n gaining a  t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n of  the  j u s t t a l e appears to ensure  s u f f i c i e n t f o r the  activity  required  f o r adjustment of m i s a l l o c a t e d r i g h t s between persons engaged i n relationships  3.6.2. The  called  S e l l i n g the second  forth.  Great C o r p o r a t i o n  component  more-than-minimal  state  self-incorporation  of  trends'  and  this.  Property  certain  ways.  a is  Nozick s his  individuals  corporate happenings. rights  are  derivation  1  rapid and  fire the  resulting  B r i e f l y the  in fact rights  story  story  to use  of  the  of  the  'market  goes l i k e  something i n  T h e r e f o r e i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r s e v e r a l people to  possess  rights  possible their to  to  apply  compensate  rights  some  that  to  a  someone  single object.  Since i t i s  i n r e t u r n f o r the t r a n s f e r of  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a c q u i r e a l l the r i g h t s  object.  relative  Through a s e r i e s of stages Nozick p o r t r a y s a  h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r y which r e s u l t s i n the emergence of the Great Corporation. the  (Nozick  agency  which  1974,  pp.285-7)  The Great C o r p o r a t i o n i s  c o l l e c t s a l l the shares from a l l the members  and r e d i s t r i b u t e s them so t h a t everyone has e x a c t l y one share i n each of  right  of each member.  uncooperative  For my purposes,  newcomers  to  the  i t i s the problem  marketplace which i s most  illustrative. Suffice shares  to  of  rights  concerning points  say t h a t t h e r e i s a j u s t t a l e t h a t e x p l a i n s how  the  out  are  dispersed  exercise  "a  major  of  how  d e c i s i o n s are made  those r i g h t s .  However, as Nozick  problem  and  is  how  the c h i l d r e n are to be  i n c l u d e d . . . . For c h i l d r e n t o wait u n t i l t h e i r parents d i e so they could most  inherit of  given  shares  their  to  allowing  adult  young  people  1974,  p.285)  methods  other  than  children.  (3-7)  non-patterned  p.286)  that is  and  to  j u s t be  enter  the  inheritance It  is  process  g u i l d of s t o c k h o l d e r s . "  clear  and  splitting  inheritance  of d i s t r i b u t i o n . as  outlined  given  on that  patterns it  to  for including  is a historical,  While not so c l e a r , i t by  n o n - h i s t o r i c a l and p a t t e r n e d . based  of  Nozick gives no evidence of i n v e s t i g a t i n g  'splitting'  distributions rights,  l i v e s . . . . ( A n d y e t ) shares cannot  a youngster.... So s p l i t t i n g i s i n t r o d u c e d as a way  (Nozick  seems  would leave these c h i l d r e n s h a r e l e s s f o r  Nozick  (Nozick  1974,  Given the tendency of  infringe  on  individual  i s o n l y the i n c r e a s e i n the t o t a l  number  of  important  people  t h a t Nozick's  While  that  Corporation"  to  (Nozick  (m)  p.287)  it  as  the  "Great  i s p o s s i b l e t o imagine  the  and the number of people  resulting for  if  shares  the  is  is  stock  share  is  a  for  a  any  effort  to  program  are  stockholders'  p.287) and stock  end  an  up with the odd number  improvement  i n more people. e x p l o s i o n and the  points  out  m/n  stock varies  s i t u a t i o n where,  of  persons  i n the  i n the sense t h a t each incentive  i t c e r t a i n l y mitigates  corporation's  against  population.  More  need to conduct a s u c c e s s f u l  of  the  Great  those who guild  Corporation,  r a i s e c h i l d r e n who  Scroll  of  themselves  to  the  From  successful  willingly  "sign  Membership" (Nozick  1974,  agree t o i n c o r p o r a t e themselves and in  in  T h i s i s a strange  the  number  f o r ownership a f t e r variations  increasing  The  amongst the p r o s p e c t i v e members, c h i l d r e n .  perspective  child-raisers  an  decrease  it  possible  We  there  population  importantly,  three  (3-8)  there  available  seeking  of three ways.  i s g r e a t e r , equal to or l e s s than (n).  corporation,  the  1974,  (n) can be r e l a t e d to each other i n one  significantly.  the  'coming of age'  we know t h a t the number of people withdrawing  enter  sales  up.'  w i l l r e s u l t i n e x i t and entry from the  from the Great C o r p o r a t i o n  only  'add  however,  splitting  the  computations  i t is  t h a t would have the same r e s u l t . Whatever the  Briefly, of  j u s t i f i e s the s p l i t ,  happenings  causes, (m)  which  Nozick only mentions death and  occurrences  other  belonging  s i g n over " a l l of  c o r p o r a t i o n . " (Nozick  1974,  p.286) What solutions  happens  when  available  to  malcontents  refuse  to  sign  a s o c i e t y are e a s i l y imagined. 78  up?  The  Nozick  concludes have  that  to  refuse  "About the youngsters, i t i s decided  join  the  stockholders'  guild,  they do not  after a l l .  They can  i t s b e n e f i t s and leave the c o r p o r a t i o n area, without any  hard  f e e l i n g s . " (Nozick  join  and  informed,  the as  1974, p.289)  As long as the r e f u s a l t o  d e c i s i o n t o forgo the b e n e f i t s o f membership are f o r example  those of the c o n s c i e n t i o u s  objector  (3-10), then Nozick's c o n c l u s i o n appears t o be i n e v i t a b l e w i t h i n a s o c i e t y upholding the strong If, know  on  what  about  membership  of  stake, would  then the n o t i o n t h a t a c t i o n t o b r i n g be  an i n t e r f e r e n c e would appear t o be  h i s ignorance  as an i n d i v i d u a l .  child-raiser  such  a  way  What are the l i m i t s which  to  remain  child-raising where not  restrict  from b r i n g i n g the c h i l d up i n such a way that  that  she  Is i t p o s s i b l e t o r a i s e a c h i l d  can  be a c o n s c i e n t i o u s  enrollment but t h a t she won't choose t o opt out? is  member  then i t would seem t h a t he i s not being  enrollment i s n e a r l y automatic? in  candidate does not  I f no e f f o r t i s made t o b r i n g the p r o s p e c t i v e  recognized the  of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s .  other hand, the p r o s p e c t i v e  i s at  mistaken. out  the  formulation  objector to  I f the s o c i e t y  within  the j u s t , h y p o t h e t i c a l h i s t o r y , then the  actions  r e q u i r e d t o r a i s e the c h i l d t o the p o i n t  she knowingly r e j e c t s being  a conscientious  o b j e c t o r must  i n t e r f e r e with the r i g h t s of the c h i l d - r a i s e r .  3.6.3.  P a t e r n a l i s t i c - L i k e C h i l d - R a i s i n g (3-9)  Is there no way w i t h i n the Nozickean framework t o l e g i t i m i z e the  paternalistic-like  child-raising? first  i s to  interferences  that  are  required  There are two p o s s i b l e d i r e c t i o n s t o take. consider  by The  some form o f compensation f o r the c h i l d 79  paid  by  the  addition form  corporation  of  of  the new  invitation  to  pre-entry not  to  a  the  the and  seems  child  enter.  join  will  b e n e f i t from the  on  to  the  There are two  be  have  few  provision  -  of  is  the  problems with  considering  F i r s t , those who  benefited  from  chose  the same  are i n v i t e d to leave the t e r r i t o r y without  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r s .  the  fallen  I f the b e n e f i t s of  any on the  the compensatory f r e e - r i d e f a l l to a l l members of  s o c i e t y , then the c o s t must be more widespread than j u s t to  the  intimate  side-constraint individual, order  providers. has  been  Otherwise  violated  in  the  that  libertarian  the r i g h t s of  to b e n e f i t the  group. take the second.  second d i r e c t i o n i s to u t i l i z e the adjustment clause ensure  that  recognized and  certain as  relationship  concern  are  then is  and  exists  relationships  kinds  existing  positions  just  it  to  of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l occur and  be  resultant  to  rights.  can be argued t h a t  Once  such  a  intimate-dependency  the  i n t e r f e r e n c e s can occur.  occurrence  My  of p a t e r n a l i s t i c - l i k e  for c h i l d - r a i s i n g .  C h i l d r e n r e q u i r e an i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r . needs  holdings  I f an intimate-dependency r e l a t i o n s h i p  paternalistic-like  limited  The  i n order  t o f a c i l i t a t e r e a l l o c a t i o n of  their  just.  interferences required  child  an  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r , have been i n t e r f e r e d with i n  I w i l l abandon the f i r s t d i r e c t i o n and  is  only  c o r p o r a t i o n p r i o r to  as compensation.  corporation  The  available  Second, the c o s t of p r o v i d i n g the f r e e - r i d e has  very  the  that  free-riding  free-riding cost.  of  who  member with the minimum of f u s s .  compensation  'free-riding'  members  an i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r 80  The  i s obvious.  reason that each There are  things  that In  a  c h i l d must have done f o r her i n order t h a t she  a way  demands If  survive.  t h a t i s r e m i n i s c e n t of the p r e n a t a l s t a t e , the newborn an  intimate  p r o v i d e r t o meet some very obvious needs.  a f t e r b i r t h the c h i l d i s abandoned by the p r o v i d e r the  will  die.  child the  child  In the more u s u a l case where the a d u l t remains,  the  a u t o m a t i c a l l y e x e r c i s e s the adjustment c l a u s e and  engages  a d u l t i n what w i l l become an i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p .  I f an  adult  assumes  the  role  of i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r over an extended  period,  t h a t i s over months and years  of  maternity  the  adult  is  ward  identified  nurse  r a t h e r than the few hours  or the daycare s t a f f , then t h a t  as the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r .  Once the a d u l t  takes on the r o l e of i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r , she w i l l be aware of the c h i l d ' s apparent needs and wants on an ongoing b a s i s . of  the  child  as  necessarily  be  Where  are  they  estimation low  by  observed  not,  There  three  are  adjustment  to  assuming  comparison t o her own  clause.  until the  intimate  provider  will  that  the  intimate provider's  of and p r o v i s i o n f o r the c h i l d ' s needs i s n o t i c e a b l y  again.  that  the  needs  r e l a t i v e to the needs of the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r .  can be invoked  occur  by  The  late  needs, then the adjustment  possibilities The  first,  for  the  enactment of the  most obvious and  adolescence,  clause  l e a s t l i k e l y to  i s t h a t the c h i l d ,  recognizing  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i s not t r a n s f e r r i n g enough h o l d i n g s  p l a c e the c h i l d at what appears to be the l e v e l j u s t i f i e d  the  just  the  society,  by  h y p o t h e t i c a l s t o r y t h a t i s being used as the b a s i s of seeks  adjustment  clause.  adjustment  clause  another i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r a c c o r d i n g to the The can  second  only  occur 81  kind if  of  enactment  of  there i s more than  the one  intimate  p r o v i d e r f o r the c h i l d .  intimate  providers  would  In t h i s case one of the other  p r o v i d e the j u s t e n t i t l e m e n t  f o r the  child. In  the  another  third  adult  kind  of  is  not  who  enactment of the adjustment a  p o t e n t i a l i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r can  become i n v o l v e d with the d i s p a r i t y i n p r o v i s i o n i n g . has  no  provider  the  has  an  In the Nozickean s i t u a t i o n , the i n t i m a t e  i n v i o l a b l e r i g h t t o n o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e but t h i s  does not extend t o p r e v e n t i n g outsider.  the c h i l d from contact  directly  would  be  i n an e f f o r t t o p o i n t out t o the c h i l d t h a t she  well-advised  to  invoke  the adjustment c l a u s e .  would an o u t s i d e r want t o become i n v o l v e d ? recruit  Great If  the  be  There i s good  behooves  seen  the  the Conservative  3.7  by  the  o u t s i d e r t h a t the n e g l e c t o f the  o u t s i d e r t o become i n v o l v e d .  'opting out'  The o u t s i d e r i s  form o f the remote p r o v i d e r .  Nozick Summarized Clearly  place When  this  'joining be  those  extreme  situation  to  reason  i n order t o i n c r e a s e the value of the shares.  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r w i l l p o s s i b l y r e s u l t i n the c h i l d it  Why  maximum number of p r o s p e c t i v e members i n t o the  Corporation  i t can  with  I t i s p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s o u t s i d e r t o approach the  child  to  T h i s person  r i g h t t o i n t e r f e r e with the a c t i o n or l a c k of a c t i o n of  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r .  right  clause  i n the Conservative  limits  protection of up'  treated  the  p o s i t i o n i n c l u d i n g Nozick  on i n t e r f e r e n c e s with i n d i v i d u a l  rights.  from  t o the  young  interference  an  applied  person being given the o p p o r t u n i t y o f  the r e s u l t i s unexpected. as  is  In order f o r the c h i l d  i n d i v i d u a l , i t i s necessary 82  t h a t she be  informed  as  to  Furthermore, child not  it  decide  want  is  to  providing  joining  what  it  in  inform  commonsense  is  the  notion  just  conscientious our  with  of  the  not  to  join.  c l e a r understanding of what  This  of or  the  unjust.  opportunities,  demonstrated  draw  whether  our  by our  To suggest t h a t a  child  gets  That h y p o t h e t i c a l s t o r y i n North  c o n t a i n s a s t r o n g element of some s o r t of Those who  have a c q u i r e d a reasonable  are those who  had the o p p o r t u n i t i e s  Withholding o p p o r t u n i t i e s from them would have T h e r e f o r e i t i s necessary t o endow c h i l d r e n with or the j u s t i f y i n g h i s t o r y w i l l not be upheld  possessions  unjust.  as  with  a Fagan f o r a parent does not f i t i n  possessions  and s e i z e d them.  consistent  'parent' of the u r c h i n s .  parents  of  is  child-raising  luck  democracies  collection  the  a  child.  chance f o r c h i l d r e n .  been  or  i n t e r e s t s of a l l members t h a t the  hypothetical story.  American fair  join  T h e r e f o r e , i f the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i s  child  r e a c t i o n t o Fagan, the  with  to  up means, then i t i s l i k e l y t h a t some other member w i l l  to  it  the  join.  the  means  of  Allowance  and  p r e s e n t members w i l l have to be c o n s i d e r e d of  the  adjustment  clause eliminates t h i s  contradiction. The a d d i t i o n of the adjustment raised  in  such  a  Where  the  clear  t h a t i t was  that an  there was excess  them. the  child  way  c l a u s e allows the c h i l d t o be  t h a t she can l i v e i n a Nozickean  world.  does not s e i z e an a v a i l a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y i t i s not due t o l a c k of an endowment.  In the  no endowment, the c h i l d can seek someone who  case has  of p o s s e s s i o n s and can e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p with  While principle  t h a t person i s not compelled of  transfer,  it 83  is  to act according to  likely  that  once  the  misallocation all  the  i s apparent, a t r a n s f e r w i l l occur.  principles  from  Nozick,  the  J u s t as with  adjustment  clause  is  a v a i l a b l e t o everyone not j u s t t o c h i l d r e n . In of  the  points  system  c o n c l u d i n g s e c t i o n of Chapter One I l i s t e d a s e r i e s which  of  of  points  presented  contend  principles  arrangements these  I  in  two  child-raising  which  be s a t i s f i e d by any g e n e r a l  claim  to  justify  our a c t u a l or i d e a l s o c i e t y . relation  by Nozick,  indicates  must  the  social  C o n s i d e r a t i o n of  Conservative  position  as  with the a d d i t i o n of the adjustment c l a u s e ,  points is  to  the  i n which  not met.  the  commonsense  notion  of  The f i r s t p o i n t which i s not f i r m l y  met i s the requirement t h a t c h i l d - r a i s i n g as the a c t o f endowing c h i l d r e n and ensuring t h e i r s u r v i v a l be considered as one of the basic  social  arrangements.  child-raising condition  in  inclusion. basic.  a  arrangement  position  t o my requirements, be  Conservative  different  social  there  i s no  which guarantees i t s  second p o i n t which i s not c l e a r l y met i s more  must  provider  basic  Conservative  According  the  remote  the The  child-raising In  as  Although Nozick does not d i s a l l o w  can  a l l persons i n v o l v e d i n  s u b j e c t t o the same general  principles.  p o s i t i o n , once i t i s acknowledged t h a t the act  to  influence  the  child  in  a way  from t h a t o f the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o  conclude t h a t the remote p r o v i d e r can i n t e r f e r e with the a c t i o n s of  the  intimate  provider  by  c o n t r a d i c t i n g the i n t e n t of her  c h i l d - r a i s i n g a c t i o n s f o r the purpose of c o n v i n c i n g the c h i l d t o j o i n up.  T h i s would seem t o be a case of the general  applying  differently  child-raising  to  activity.  principles  the d i f f e r e n t persons i n v o l v e d i n the The missing 84  i n g r e d i e n t i s some s p e c i a l  status  for  the group.  To attempt to i n t r o d u c e t h a t i n g r e d i e n t  i n t o Nozick would be d i f f i c u l t more  i f not i m p o s s i b l e .  I consider i t  u s e f u l to c o n s i d e r the group i n the context of the L i b e r a l  position, explaining  since our  the  Liberal  social  position  arrangements  position.  85  shares with  the  the  task  of  Conservative  Notes on Chapter  3-1 have  In my  attempt to be c o n s i s t e n t with Nozick's  attempted  chapter.  Three  to  adopt Nozick's p o l i t i c a l philosophy i n t h i s  While I have t r i e d to be c l e a r as to which p o i n t s are  Nozick's and which are mine, I f e e l i t i s necessary that  arguments I  to emphasize  the p o l i t i c a l philosophy presented i n t h i s chapter i s from  Nozick.  My  contribution  child-raising  and  i s l i m i t e d to the c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of  the arguments f o r and the a p p l i c a t i o n of the  adjustment c l a u s e .  3-2  As  establishes  represented that  (Worsfold 1974,  3-3 within  political others.  results  from  informs  One  can  venerable  to only  of the moral s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t the p r o h i b i t i o n of a g g r e s s i o n assume  that t h i s  impact  aspects' of  is  considered,  limitation When a Nozick's  the moral s i d e - c o n s t r a i n t appears  Easton d e f i n e s "the p r o p e r t y of a s o c i a l a c t t h a t  i t w i t h a p o l i t i c a l aspect i s the a c t s ' r e l a t i o n to the  a u t h o r i t a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n of values f o r a s o c i e t y . " p.134)  tradition  ' p o l i t i c a l ' nature of h i s d i s c u s s i o n .  'political  the  questionable.  the impact  philosophy  the of  of  this  the c h i l d ' s good i s the same as the p a r e n t s ' .  limits  against  limiting  Locke,  p.145)  Nozick  definition  by  Easton's  redistribution.  (Easton  1953,  d e f i n i t i o n c e r t a i n l y i m p l i e s the p o t e n t i a l f o r Nozick  needs 86  to  provide  an  equivalent  definition  f o r what he would take to be the p o l i t i c a l aspect of  the s o c i a l a c t .  3-4  A c c o r d i n g to Nozick: "Property  a  specified  will  be  cross  range  another's  a d m i s s i b l e options concerning Admissible  moral  justified  someone  (Nozick 1974,  to  reuse  an example, one's  does not i n c l u d e the r i g h t to r e p l a c e  else's  punishment  ribs against t h e i r w i l l  (unless i n  f o r a crime, or s e l f - d e f e n s e , and so on)"  p.282)  ' I n v i s i b l e compensation' c o u l d take a v a r i e t y  For  example,  the  compensation. support,  or  something  options are those t h a t do not  boundary;  right in a knife  between  3-5  of  realized.  property it  r i g h t s are viewed as r i g h t s to determine which of  joy  of  having c h i l d r e n  Since c h i l d - r a i s i n g has success,  it  seems  that  of forms.  c o u l d be c i t e d as a  no guarantee of joy, or the  possibility  of an  i n v i s i b l e form of compensation i s remote.  3-6  Nozick  may  be  most  i s p u r s u i n g the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of how efficiently  ( l e a s t cost) i n t e r n a l i z e d  get a sense of the nature of "The  property  externalities  others  property;  your  externalities raise  the  'property  rights  of  of  value  for  your  others  your  internalize  rights  activities  negative  as you are r e q u i r e d to  activities'  property  i n order t o  rights.'  of your a c t i v i t i e s i n s o f a r  compensate  externalities  effects  internalize  insofar  as these  on  their  positive activities  of t h i n g s t h a t you can f i r s t a c q u i r e property 87  rights  in.  Given  abstractly,  boundaries  what  externalities  a  system  would  internalization  be  of  drawn, we can see, roughly and  that  like.  internalized What,  a l l negative  though, would the f u l l  a l l p o s i t i v e e x t e r n a l i t i e s involve?  In i t s  s t r o n g form, i t would i n v o l v e your (each person's) r e c e i v i n g the full  benefits  1974,  p.280)  3-7  of  There  children  in  your  are the  (his) a c t i v i t i e s to others."  certainly  other  distribution  of  procedures the  (Nozick  for including  b e n e f i t s of a s o c i e t y .  There c o u l d be an annual l o t t e r y f o r the purpose of d i s t r i b u t i n g the  wealth;  custom  in  there c o u l d be a p o t l a t c h f o r c h i l d r e n , as was the some v i l l a g e s on the west c o a s t .  There could be the  establishment o f some minimal l e v e l o f primary goods, which each c h i l d would be e n t i t l e d t o c l a i m a t any time.  C l e a r l y Nozick i s  t e l l i n g h i s s t o r y o f the More-than-Minimal  s t a t e f o r the purpose  of  social  demonstrating  Otherwise  he  the  would  problems have  of  our  entertained  a  arrangements.  broader  range  of  p o s s i b i l i t i e s than j u s t i n h e r i t a n c e and s p l i t t i n g o f shares.  3-8 one  We s t a r t from the p o i n t where "each person h o l d s e x a c t l y share  in  himself."(p.285) stock s p l i t t i n g  each  right  over  every  other person i n c l u d i n g  Nozick c l a i m s t h a t "the people j o i n i n g and the j u s t i f y each other."(p.286)  88  Where r = # r i g h t s per  person  x = # people i n s t a t e each person d i v i d e s Before any x  *  are  (initially)  each of r r i g h t s  transactions involving  r shares.  Since there are  i n t o x shares  shares, each person  has  x people, then x * x * r shares  i n existence. After of  t r a n s a c t i o n s are  the  m  people we  completed, and  have S ( m ) = x * x * r  t o t a l number of shares that m  people  withdraw,  calculations  occur.  p r i o r to the  where S(m)  is  the  exist.  and Based  withdrawal  n on  people the  enter.  r a t i o m/n,  Splitting the  following  occurs: where m>n  S'(n)  = (x - m + n)2  * r <<  S(m)  where m<n  S"(n)  = (x - m + n)2  * r >>  S(m)  where m=n  S"'(n)=  3-9 order  I have i n t r o d u c e d the to  of  knowing  difference  being  intention  of  paternalistic interfering to  be  the to  directing  a  child-raiser the  i n the lacks  child  by  c h i l d - r a i s e r s with of  the  child.  i s c l e a r e s t when we child acts  towards with  the  consider  some  goal.  intention  no The the A of  f o r some purpose based on what he  child's interests.  any  'paternalistic-like' in  interests  alluded  with  child-raiser child's  expression  i d e n t i f y a c t i o n s c a r r i e d out  pretension  takes  S(m)  intention  interests.  89  and  The  paternalistic-like  claims no knowledge of  the  CHAPTER FOUR  THE WELL-ORDERED SOCIETY  4.1.  Rawls - More or Less than Ennis  tend  describes  to  look  Nozick  those i n the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n as those who  to  explanations  of  opportunity.'  (Ennis  the e x t e r n a l  persons'  environmental  actions  relative  factors f o r  to  1976, p.10) A r i s i n g from t h i s  'having  an  conception  are the q u e s t i o n s o f where and how those i n the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n place  the  questions to  gain  with the  as  of  Ennis  the l o c u s f o r value judgments.  the p r i n c i p l e s Liberal  within  interference.  identifies  these  If i t i s possible  some i n s i g h t i n t o how these value judgments are l i n k e d  boundaries  in  limits  o f j u s t i c e from a p o l i t i c a l p h i l o s o p h y o f  position of  i t may  be  possible  to  identify  the  allowable interference r e l a t i v e t o c h i l d - r a i s i n g  the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n .  E n n i s ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f those  the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n i n c l u d e s the suggestion t h a t t h e r e i s a  tendency  f o r the environmental  f a c t o r s t o expand t o f i l l the  need  f o r others t o i n t e r v e n e on the p a r t o f the i n d i v i d u a l f o r  the  sake  of  opportunities  ensuring  that  that  are g e n e r a l l y  the i n d i v i d u a l available.  s e i z e s the  As i n d i c a t e d i n  Chapter Two, I take the arguments o f John Rawls, as presented i n A Theory o f J u s t i c e Liberal As  (Rawls  1971),  to  be  a  paradigm  o f the  position. I  have  demonstrated  with Nozick 90  from the Conservative  Position such  i t i s possible  a way as t o u n r a v e l the i n h e r e n t a c t i o n g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s  for  child  out  another  of  t o analyze a p o l i t i c a l philosophy i n  r a i s i n g within that society.  My purpose i n c a r r y i n g  e x e r c i s e i n f o r a g i n g through  a political  the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t .  philosophy  As was c l e a r i n  the p r e v i o u s chapter, the C o n s e r v a t i v e P o s i t i o n allows a minimum of  i n t e r f e r e n c e with c h i l d r e n .  the  status  i t assigns  develops  with  justice,  permits  context  of  principle  a  the  democratic  the  maximum  democratic  of  of  there  Liberal  interference  society  inviolability  having  allowable as  individual  exists  a  principles  an  In our  between  the  T h e r e f o r e , i n a d d i t i o n t o my c l a i m  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o d e r i v e a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d - r a i s i n g  p r a c t i c e s from a p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l philosophy, it  i n the  overriding  rights.  tension  of  o f our s o c i a l arrangements p r o v i d e d by the L i b e r a l  Conservative P o s i t i o n s .  that  the s o c i a l union which n e c e s s a r i l y  implementation  societies  explanations and  the  to  The L i b e r a l P o s i t i o n , because o f  i s possible  range  of  justified  in  that  t o combine the j u s t i f i c a t i o n s d e r i v e d from the  political  arrangements  I contend  philosophies  order  to  used  determine,  to not  e x p l a i n our s o c i a l only  the range of  p r i n c i p l e s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g , but a l s o t o i d e n t i f y the  p r i n c i p l e s which c r e a t e the c o n f l i c t s i n value judgments r e l a t e d to  raising  children.  explanations  and  fairness  order  in  In  arguments to  t h i s chapter I w i l l examine Rawls" f o r the  arrive  at  an  p r i n c i p l e s o f c h i l d - r a i s i n g i n Rawls' will and  concept  of  justice  interpretation  as  of the  'well-ordered' s o c i e t y .  I  attempt t o remain t r u e t o the s p i r i t of h i s argument (4-1) to  use  his principles  and  91  conceptions as a c c u r a t e l y as  possible.  The  question  paternalistic order  to  reveal I  the  principles  from  becomes  opportunities action  clear  Rawls  r a i s e the f o l l o w i n g dilemma. aware  that  in  the  which  limit  A c h i l d ' s remote  future.  The  as to l i m i t the c h i l d ' s  intimate provider  i n what appears to be a r a t i o n a l manner.  that  In  the c h i l d ' s i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i s  i n t e r f e r i n g with the c h i l d i n such a way  the  of where the  i n t e r f e r e n c e s r e q u i r e d by c h i l d - r a i s i n g stop.  interferences provider  t h a t I pose i s the q u e s t i o n  justifies Yet  i t is  i f some other method of c h i l d - r e a r i n g were used  c h i l d would have more o p p o r t u n i t i e s as an a d u l t .  the  Is i t p o s s i b l e  t o determine which p r o v i d e r p r e v a i l s under Rawls' theory? In  the  preceding  chapter  I argued t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e to  d e r i v e a s o c i a l arrangement from the Conservative while  including  difference will to  be  in  into  Conservative the  become not it  do is  be  capable  society  position, must  This  significant  the be  that limit  capable  surrounds  them.  In  permanent  on the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r of becoming a  interference  everyone's  i n t e r e s t t h a t the c h i l d  ' j o i n i n g up' the  rational -  to  members of the s o c i e t y , even though they w i l l  voluntary, of  is  conscientious  so because t h a t i s not the r a t i o n a l t h i n g to do. in  the  means that c h i l d r e n must be able to r e f u s e  necessary t h a t the to  moral beings w i t h no  with the i n t e r a c t i o n necessary f o r growing up  the  child  objector.  as  s t a t u s from other persons, ensures t h a t c h i l d r e n  provided  fit  that  children  p o s i t i o n that,  the  ' j o i n up,'  be s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y .  decision decisions  interference  must  However, be  the c h i l d must be subjected  to  being  r a t i o n a l t h i n g when, i n h i s ignorance, he has  rational,  i t is  to  of  be  While  forced  and  to do  mistakenly  the  decided  to do  otherwise.  L i k e Nozick, Rawls s t a r t s from the premise of  individual rights.  best of  of a s t r o n g  sense  In Rawls' case, i n d i v i d u a l s c o n s i d e r the  p r o t e c t i o n of those r i g h t s to c o n s i s t of the d e t e r m i n a t i o n a  set  of  everyone.  The  fairness can  be  by  POP  duplicated  a  by  retrospective  selfish  of  difference  different  of  the  anyone  who  which  w i l l apply t o  principles  of j u s t i c e as  of  conceptions  of  what  institutions  individuals  between  can step behind the v e i l of  Nozick's p r i n c i p l e s become apparent  examination  evolution  needs  principles  i s a conscious, r a t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e which  By comparison,  unintentional  The  derivation  the  ignorance. upon  action-guiding  appears  t o be  an  designed t o meet the  i n competition with each o t h e r .  Rawls  and  Nozick  i s a r e s u l t of the  of the r e l a t i o n of the s i n g l e  individual  to the c o o p e r a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s .  What  is  Rawls'  accomplished to  argument  with i t ?  and  justice  Essentially  of  for  social  the  p.viii)  certainly While  Rawls  of the conception of j u s t i c e claims  that  as f a i r n e s s i s the best approximation  judgment  1971,  does he c l a i m t o have  The arguments i n A Theory of J u s t i c e are  e s t a b l i s h the reasonableness  fairness.  what  as  h i s conception of of our c o n s i d e r e d  j u s t i c e and c o n s t i t u t e s the most a p p r o p r i a t e b a s i s arrangement The  of the democratic  society.  s o c i a l arrangement of the democratic  (Rawls society  c o n t a i n s the s o c i a l union r e q u i r e d f o r c h i l d - r a i s i n g .  i t s shape may  vary there i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t c h i l d - r a i s i n g  e n t a i l s both the i n t e r f e r e n c e with the c h i l d and the o p p o r t u n i t y for  i n t e r f e r e n c e with  the parent on b e h a l f of the c h i l d . 93  If  there i s an acceptance for of  both  understanding  the  principles  of  justice  so  that  i t is  to decide whose r i g h t to n o n - i n t e r f e r e n c e p r e v a i l s  and  the o v e r r i d i n g a u t h o r i t y of the remote p r o v i d e r f u n c t i o n s i n  order t o uphold the p r i n c i p l e s of  4.2.  justice.  S o c i a l Union Since  those  in  the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n a l l o w f o r a d i f f e r e n t  of  power  to  exist  kind  individual, union' the  of  and  protective society  which  is  not  the  ends."  (Rawls is  further  compared  a  strong  According  #79)  which  is  described  The  Rawls,  p. by  generations  resulting  argues  can  be  "The p r i v a t e  but by  the  any p r a c t i c a b l e changes would  522)  The  Rawls  natural  that  Nozick's  means whereby they pursue t h e i r p e r s o n a l s o c i a l union, on the other  as being based on the needs and  of i t s members.  result  'social  together by a p u b l i c c o n v i c t i o n t h a t i t s  of  realized  to  are j u s t and good i n themselves,  1971,  the  the ' p r i v a t e  resemblance to  to  Rawls o u t l i n e s  The purpose of the s o c i a l  a l l o w the p a r t i c i p a n t s access to the f u l l  the  p.523)  group,  union'  everyone... t h a t  stock  potentialities  Rawls  bears  held  of  reduce  to  'social  associations.  calculations  "of  the  arrangements  hand,  the  i t i s worthwhile c o n s i d e r i n g the i d e a of the  opposite  basic  for  as presented by Rawls. (Rawls 1971,  society'  is  rights  the c h i l d and the parent, then there must be some way  possible how  of the i n v i o l a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l  potentialities  assets of the o t h e r s . " (Rawls  community  "the  union  joint  similarly  exists  over time, with  contributions  conceived."  1971, the  of s u c c e s s i v e  (Rawls 1971,  p.523)  t h a t , i n g e n e r a l , s o c i a l unions are c h a r a c t e r i z e d 94  by  two  properties;  valued  for  society  themselves.  final  ends  and common a c t i v i t i e s  The w e l l - o r d e r e d s o c i e t y , which i s the  d e r i v e d from the p r i n c i p l e s determined by the POP,  social  union  of  "cooperating in  shared  ways  social  unions.  It  has  together t o r e a l i z e t h e i r own  allowed  by  is a  the shared end of  and another's  the p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e . "  nature  (Rawls  1971,  p.527 ) The the  second  members  property  carry  themselves,  is  understanding smaller over  out  of  of Rawls' s o c i a l union, the f a c t  common a c t i v i t i e s which are valued f o r  evident  the  when  principles  the  result  of  everyone's  that  govern  the  scheme of  s o c i a l unions w i t h i n the w e l l - o r d e r e d s o c i e t y i s viewed  the  generations.  Because each i n d i v i d u a l h o l d s the same  principles  of  individual  plans  plans  r i c h e r than they c o u l d be i n d i v i d u a l l y .  the  are  rational of  Aristotelian  individual  The  in  being  Principle,  his  plan  of  life,  p a r t of the summation of a l l  because  the  I f we  summation  to  a  p.  apply  of  the  528)  P r i n c i p l e r e l a t e s the complexity of human  theory of good.  correlation  exists  According to t h i s p r i n c i p l e , a  between  the  c a p a c i t y of innate or  t r a i n e d a b i l i t i e s r e a l i z e d and the enjoyment experienced. 1971,  the  a c t i v i t i e s are r i c h e r , they must a l s o be experienced  Aristotelian  activity  choice  life  as a good. (Rawls 1971,  direct  that  pp.414,424)  It  is  to  (Rawls  t h i s p r i n c i p l e t h a t the remote  p r o v i d e r must r e s o r t i n determining which i n t e r f e r i n g a c t i o n s of child-raising  are j u s t i f i a b l e .  This p r i n c i p l e also establishes  the b e n e f i t t o be gained from being a r u l e - f o l l o w i n g member of a social  union,  where  the r u l e s being f o l l o w e d r e s u l t i n a good 95  which can be shared greater  complexity  outside  the  i n such a way t h a t each member experiences of  social  society,  following  plan  life  of  human  activity  union. the  In  rules  a  than would be p o s s i b l e  the case of the w e l l - o r d e r e d  inherent i n pursuing  a rational  i s r e q u i r e d t o be a member i n good s t a n d i n g .  The  principles  guiding  the p u r s u i t of a r a t i o n a l p l a n of l i f e , the  principles  o f r a t i o n a l c h o i c e , are p r i n c i p l e s which r e l y on the  best  available  four  p r i n c i p l e s of r a t i o n a l choice f o r which Rawls argues i t i s  the  judgment  principle  interferences  of  the i n d i v i d u a l concerned.  postponement  necessary  postponement  of  which  Of the  i s most r e l e v a n t t o the  for child-raising.  Rawls' p r i n c i p l e of  h o l d s t h a t " i f i n the f u t u r e we may want t o do one  of s e v e r a l t h i n g s but are unsure which, then, other t h i n g s equal,  we  are t o p l a n so t h a t these a l t e r n a t i v e s are both kept  open." (Rawls 1971, p.410) with  the  rational  primary choice  principle  good on  When an i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r of 'having  behalf  of postponement.  interference to  as  of  an o p p o r t u n i t y '  the  child  which  the  interferes she makes a ignores the  I f the remote p r o v i d e r looks at the  a r e s t r i c t i o n on the o p p o r t u n i t y  p a r t i c i p a t e i n a more complex human a c t i v i t y  to  being  f o r the c h i l d  (which according  the A r i s t o t e l i a n P r i n c i p l e would r e s u l t i n good not o n l y f o r individual,  but  p o t e n t i a l l y f o r a l l members of the s o c i a l  union) then the remote p r o v i d e r i s o b l i g e d t o i n t e r f e r e with the intimate the  other  highlights the This  p r o v i d e r on b e h a l f , not o n l y of the c h i l d , but a l s o of members the  intimate  of  the  social  union.  This  condition  d i f f e r e n c e between the scope of concern h e l d by  provider  and  that  h e l d by the remote p r o v i d e r .  c o n d i t i o n a l s o e x p l a i n s the m o t i v a t i o n of the Conservative 96  outsider  who t r i e s t o convince  increase  the number  conceive  of  the  good  of  the c h i l d t o j o i n up i n order t o  available  shares.  I t i s possible to  the good d e f i n e d by the A r i s t o t e l i a n P r i n c i p l e and of  an  increase  of  Nozickean  shares  as  being  equivalent.  4.3.  P r i o r i t y to Interfere The  L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n has no problem j u s t i f y i n g  paternalistic  interference.  I f i t i s i n the i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d f o r someone  to  then  interfere  that  interference i s j u s t i f i a b l e  wish,  however,  those  i n the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n .  conditions  to  interference  Liberal  determine  of  raises  the upper Asking  (4-3)  the p r o v i d e r s  with be  interferes  with  the q u e s t i o n , simply  the c h i l d  argued  which  'What  elicits a  can be j u s t i f i e d ,  i n deciding  acts i s j u s t i f i e d .  reasonably  on i n t e r f e r e n c e  However, asking the q u e s t i o n ,  the problems ' inherent  interfering  I c o n s i d e r the  the p r i n c i p l e o f p a t e r n a l i s m from those  with  paternalistic  limits  the c h i l d i s j u s t i f i a b l e ? '  position.  interference  In t h i s chapter,  child-raising. with  restatement  I  t o suggest a very d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f problem f o r  that  relative  (4-2).  i n the 'What  and how?' of several  When one i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i s  beyond  the  limits  of  what can  t o be i n the i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d , who  the i n t i m a t e  provider  on  the b e h a l f of the  child? When it  seems  would Both  there  i s another i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r f o r the same c h i l d  reasonable  restrain  the  t o assume t h a t the other i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r first  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r from h e r a c t i o n s .  p r o v i d e r s can c l a i m t h a t they are attempting 97  t o a c t i n the  best  interest  engaged  in  apparently is  of  an  intimate  into  the  or  real.  hypothetical relationship  justifiable  certainly  child's  future  Their  the  plan  involvement  have  the  While they may  course been  the best evidence In  with  c h i l d and  for  are  in  good, be i t an  intimate  i m p l i e s t h a t they have an i n t e n t i o n to continue  relationship.  the  association  Both have  i n the p r i v i l e g e d p o s i t i o n of having whatever i n s i g h t  possible  that  the c h i l d by being p a t e r n a l i s t i c .  of  have d i f f i c u l t y  action,  the  one  determining  they chose w i l l  a r r i v e d at by r a t i o n a l beings  of the i n t e r e s t s of the  in  considering  child.  case where there i s o n l y one  intimate provider,  and  t h a t p r o v i d e r i s i n t e r f e r i n g with the c h i l d beyond the l i m i t s of what  can  be  then  only  on  someone  child, the  remote  the c h i l d ' s b e h a l f . who  it  only  argued to be i n the c h i l d ' s  has  seems other  reasonable agent  provider,  ongoing  who  however,  commitment  characterizes intervenes  with  interference intimate child  in  the  to c o n s i d e r the remote p r o v i d e r can a c t on the c h i l d ' s b e h a l f . is  operating  to  the  care  that  intimate  does  detail  not  from  a  l a c k s the i n t i m a t e for  intimate provider.  providers. the  Since I take the s t r a n g e r to  n e i t h e r an i n t e r e s t i n nor knowledge of the  concern f o r persons i n general and and  interest,  the s t r a n g e r or the remote p r o v i d e r are a v a i l a b l e to  intervene be  reasonably  The  p o s i t i o n of connection  a p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d that When the remote p r o v i d e r  provider exist  as  in  there  is  a sense of  the debate between  two  Since the remote p r o v i d e r cannot know -the possessed  by the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r ,  the  remote p r o v i d e r must argue f o r the c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t s i n the more general  terms  or p r i n c i p l e s t h a t apply to a l l persons. 98  In the  Liberal  position  as  represented  by  the remote p r o v i d e r on the c h i l d ' s  will  be  applied  must  be  consistent  which  are  used  with,  by Rawls, the p r i n c i p l e s t h a t  i f not i d e n t i c a l t o , the  behalf  principles  to j u s t i f y a l l the i n s t i t u t i o n s which a r i s e i n  the  just society.  4.4.  Liberal  Paternalism  Rawls p o i n t s out t h a t the problem of p a t e r n a l i s m i s one i s considered by the POP  o n l y a f t e r the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e has  established.  This  describes  o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n , the POP  the  is  capable  like  POP  paternalism  the as  long  of managing t h e i r own  do as  must assume t h a t they  not they  need are  affairs.  Just  t o c o n s i d e r the need f o r making  these  assumptions.  Rawls, however, admits to a broader p e r s p e c t i v e f o r the POP they  have  agreed  principles  of  to  the  justice.  i d e a l conception  the POP  4.4.1.  adopt the  The  represented  once  by  the  In order to p r o t e c t themselves a g a i n s t  the r i s k s t h a t f o l l o w from diminished to manage t h e i r own  been  n e c e s s a r i l y the case because, as Rawls  are r a t i o n a l beings Nozick,  that  affairs,  a b i l i t y to be r a t i o n a l ,  i t i s reasonable  ' p r i n c i p l e s of  and necessary  or  that  paternalism.'  Principles  Following  Dworkin  (Dworkin  1972)  Rawls  describes  the  p r i n c i p l e s of p a t e r n a l i s m as f o l l o w s : 1.  P a t e r n a l i s t i c a c t i o n s must be c o n s i s t e n t with (a)  the p r e f e r e n c e s  and  being  acted  the  on  (to  irrational) 99  i n t e r e s t s of the extent  that  individual  they are  not  (b)  the theory of primary  goods, to the extent t h a t  (a) i s not known. 2.  Paternalistic  clear  evidence  being acted 3.  actions  must o n l y occur when t h e r e i s  of f a i l u r e of reason and w i l l i n the  on.  P a t e r n a l i s i t i c a c t i o n s must be guided by the  of  justice.  The  problem  person  (Rawls 1971,  principles  pp.248-250)  I am p o s i n g r e v o l v e s around the p o s s i b i l i t y of  disagreement between an i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r who  i s o p e r a t i n g under  Principle  l.(a)  i s o p e r a t i n g under  Principle  l.(b).  should  not  and  a  remote p r o v i d e r who  A c c o r d i n g t o Rawls t h i s k i n d of disagreement  arise  because of the process used to a r r i v e at the  principles  of  justice.  trying  be  objective,  to  consequences likely  to  from reach  a  Rawls s t a t e s t h a t "one of  attempting  to  consequence of  frame  our moral  shared p o i n t of view, i s that we  agreement."  (Rawls 1971,  p.517)  are more  The hope of  r e a c h i n g agreement does not e l i m i n a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e r e will  be  disagreement.  If  there  i s a disagreement over  the  paternalisitic  a c t i o n s r e q u i r e d by c h i l d r a i s i n g i t i s p o s s i b l e  that  be the k i n d of dilemma posed at the beginning  it  this  will  of  chapter.  4.4.2. In  A p p l i c a t i o n of the addition  principles,  the  simultaneously these  to  accepting  POP, "consent  principles  Principles  in  the  need f o r the  paternalistic  agreeing to the p r i n c i p l e s to  effective  of r i g h t ,  the arrangements necessary in 100  their  conduct."  to make  (Rawls  1971,  p. 515)  These arrangements would i n c l u d e the p r a c t i c e s of moral  instruction  necessary  children.  inculcate  a  sense  of  justice  The p r i n c i p l e s of r i g h t are d e f i n e d by Rawls as  principles  in  those  l i m i t i n g the s a t i s f a c t i o n s which have value, and  conceptions  of  p.31)  If  the  were  clear  the  to  one's  which are reasonable.  p r i n c i p l e s of r i g h t and the  of  dispute  good  ambiguity  (Rawls  the 1971,  'sense of j u s t i c e '  there would be no problem i n s e t t l i n g  between the i n t i m a t e and the remote p r o v i d e r s over  the appropriateness of a p a t e r n a l i s i t i c a c t i o n of c h i l d - r a i s i n g . Rawls  in  presenting  differentiated reasonable  the p r i n c i p l e s of p a t e r n a l i s m has  between  chance  of  the  intimate  knowing  the  provider,  "settled  that we  about the c h i l d ' s p e r s o n a l make-up.  "As we know l e s s and would  has  preferences  i n t e r e s t s " of the c h i l d , and the remote p r o v i d e r who knowledge  who  clearly  has  a and  minimal  Rawls p o i n t s out  l e s s about a person, we  a c t f o r him  as  a c t f o r o u r s e l v e s from the standpoint of the o r i g i n a l  position."  (Rawls  1971,  p.249)  I w i l l r e t u r n to t h i s c l a i m  l a t e r s i n c e as w i l l be seen i t i s indeed the c r i t e r i o n t h a t must be used by the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r . There  is  a  very  real  P r i n c i p l e l . ( a ) , which r e f e r s of  the  l.(b), of  that  the P a t e r n a l i s m  the j u s t i f i c a t i o n to the  interests  person being i n t e r f e r e d with, and P a t e r n a l i s m  Principle  which uses the theory of primary  interference,  conclusions. exist  possibility  and  can  Since cause  generate  goods f o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n  different  and  conflicting  there i s a l i k e l i h o o d t h a t ambiguity  c o n f u s i o n and disagreement over the  will  necessary  c o n d i t i o n s of a 'sense of j u s t i c e ' and the j u s t i f i a b l e p r a c t i c e s for  instilling  that  sense,  it •  101  i s necessary  to c o n s i d e r what  principles  are  relevant  disagreement.  and  how  they  apply  t o t h i s k i n d of  Rawls summarizes h i s argument f o r p a t e r n a l i s t i c  i n t e r f e r e n c e as f o l l o w s : "We  are  not  literally  individual. we  do  to  respect  the conscience of an  Rather we are t o r e s p e c t him as a person and  this  by  limiting  h i s actions,  when t h i s proves  necessary, only as the p r i n c i p l e s we would both acknowledge permit" Rawls'  (Rawls 1971, p.519)  argument  is  that  the  basic  structure  defined  by  a p p l i c a t i o n o f the p r i n c i p l e s o f j u s t i c e embodies the p r i n c i p l e s that  a l l rational  order  to  remote  unravel  provider  necessary justice  to to  persons as  can  would  acknowledge.  Therefore, i n  f a r as p o s s i b l e the l i m i t a t i o n s t h a t the impose  examine  the  child-raising  on  the  intimate provider,  application in  the  of  context  the  i t is  p r i n c i p l e s of  of the i n s t i t u t i o n s  d e r i v e d from the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n .  4.4.3. The  P r i n c i p l e s of J u s t i c e principles  sequenced  set of  conception  of  of  justice  in  decision-guiding  primary s o c i a l goods.  their  final  rules  that  the  except  basis where  improvement primary intimate If  the  of some  to  good  self-respect  the  most  provider intimate  other least  favored. to  (Rawls the  interferes 102  on the  conception of income, wealth  result  i n an  1971, p.302)  interferences  i s t h a t endowing the c h i l d with provider  are a  are t o be d i s t r i b u t e d e q u a l l y  distribution will  susceptible  rely  The general  the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e i s t h a t l i b e r t y , opportunity, and  form  with  The  o f the  opportunity.  the  child  by  r e s t r i c t i n g the c h i l d ' s wealth, and,  i f the  good  the  of  having an o p p o r t u n i t y i s not i n t e r f e r e d  with,  then  goods  a t some f u t u r e p o i n t .  interferes  c h i l d r e t a i n s the o p p o r t u n i t y of g a i n i n g these  with  opportunity possesses  income, l i b e r t y , or s e l f - r e s p e c t  the  from  I f , however, the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r  child  the  in  child,  such  then  a way as t o remove the  unless  the  c h i l d already  what can be gained by the o p p o r t u n i t y , the c h i l d  will  have l o s t t h a t p a r t i c u l a r good. Rawls' f i r s t p r i o r i t y r u l e , the r u l e p l a c i n g the p r i o r i t y on justice, the  allows  sake  liberty all*. the  of must  (Rawls remote  provider,  liberty.  In  strengthen  the t o t a l system of l i b e r t y shared by  1971, p.302)  the f i r s t  case,  "a l e s s  extensive  In the s i t u a t i o n I have posed where  p r o v i d e r i s q u e s t i o n i n g the a c t i o n s o f the i n t i m a t e i t i s c l e a r t h a t the remote p r o v i d e r i n a p p l y i n g the  basic  structure  child  does  The  f o r two cases of l i b e r t y being r e s t r i c t e d f o r  has  concluded  t h a t the i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h the  not r e s u l t i n a s t r o n g e r system of j u s t i c e  overall.  second case which allows f o r a r e s t r i c t i o n o f l i b e r t y  the  state  of  less  l i b e r t y back t o the one who has the l e s s e r  liberty  - i n our case back t o the c h i l d who i s being  with.  The  reference  decision  to  refers  the  to  interfere  assumed  or  agreement  not of  interfered  i s a l s o made i n  the  child.  The  d i s c r e p a n c y r e s u l t s from the d i f f e r e n t views t h a t can a r i s e when one  (the i n t i m a t e  presumed other  intimate  provider) knowledge  i s o p e r a t i n g from a p o s i t i o n of of  the c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t s and the  (the remote p r o v i d e r ) i s a p p l y i n g the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e t o  the c h i l d i n order t o ensure t h a t the c h i l d i s r a i s e d t o possess the  primary  s o c i a l goods.  C o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the a p p l i c a t i o n of 103  the  basic  original  structure  appears  to  lead  dilemma s i n c e both p r o v i d e r s  us  right  back to the  appear t o be using i t f o r  d i f f e r e n t purposes.  4.5.  R a t i o n a l i t y Requirements It  is  intimate child.  important  provider (Rawls  deliberative  implication  of the  d e c i s i o n s on b e h a l f of the  (4-4)  In order  t o engage i n  a person must have some competence i n  when,  if  a  rational  rationality,  someone  choice must be made e l s e must make the  D e l i b e r a t i v e r a t i o n a l i t y a l s o r e q u i r e s an awareness of  evolution  condition  of  of  who  wants.  I f the c h i l d cannot engage i n  because  she  does  not  satisfy  d e l i b e r a t i v e competence the only other person in  could  is  one's  rationality  engage  that  rational  pp.411-3)  deliberative  deliberative  one  1971,  occasions  choice.  could  making  the  Thus, i t i s assumed t h a t f o r c h i l d r e n there w i l l be  frequent  the  understand  rationality  deciding.  through  to  the who  d e l i b e r a t i v e r a t i o n a l i t y f o r the c h i l d i s the  be aware of the e v o l u t i o n of the c h i l d ' s wants,  the  intimate  provider.  The  intimate  provider,  recognizing  the need f o r c o n t i n u i t y i n the r a t i o n a l choices made  on  of  behalf  rationality child's will the  the  child,  concerning  the  n e c e s s a r i l y engages i n d e l i b e r a t i v e actions  which  w i l l determine the  life  p l a n as i f the p r o v i d e r were the person the c h i l d  become.  Because she assumes t h i s p o s i t i o n of 'the a d u l t  child  treated decisions  by  will  be,'  the  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r w i l l expect to be  o u t s i d e r s , i n c l u d i n g the remote p r o v i d e r , she  makes on the c h i l d ' s b e h a l f , 104  as i f the  and the a c t i o n s she  carries  out  consequent  i n l i n e with those d e c i s i o n s are the d e c i s i o n s and actions  of  an  adult  engaged  i n deliberative  rationality. The  variance  obvious.  The  and  vagueness of d e l i b e r a t i v e r a t i o n a l i t y i s  n o t i o n of d e l i b e r a t i v e r a t i o n a l i t y ,  as posed by  Sidgwick and adjusted by Rawls (4-5), a p p l i e d t o the choice of a life  plan,  decider's  i s the choice of the a c t i o n s t h a t would f u l f i l l the fundamental  desires  given  a  consequences of a l l the p o s s i b l e courses pp.  416-7)  must  make  the  One important  i s assumed  there  i s no  deliberating Therefore,  deliberating.  provider . deliberating  child  to  once  In the case o f  f o r the c h i l d , where the  have no well-formed p l a n f o r the f u t u r e ,  logical beyond  o f a c t i o n . (Rawls 1971,  d e c i s i o n t h a t the d e l i b e r a t i v e person  i s whether t o continue  intimate  f u l l awareness of the  requirement f o r the p r o v i d e r t o continue what  she  providers  would  deliberate  for herself.  have decided what a reasonable  life  p l a n would be f o r themselves i f they were i n the p o s i t i o n of the child  they  have i n e f f e c t decided the l i f e p l a n f o r 'the a d u l t  the c h i l d w i l l be.' The  remoteness of the remote p r o v i d e r p r o h i b i t s involvement  i n the k i n d o f r a t i o n a l d e l i b e r a t i o n c a r r i e d out by the i n t i m a t e provider  acting  as  'the a d u l t the c h i l d w i l l be.'  provider  must view the c h i l d as an i n d i v i d u a l who, by r e a l i z i n g  his  own and other's nature  the  principles  human  activity  experienced life  plan  by of  of  t o the f u l l e s t extent p o s s i b l e under  justice,  which all.  The remote  contributes  results  in  t o the complexity of  increasing  the  enjoyment  I t i s t h e r e f o r e the d i f f e r e n c e s from the  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r t h a t are allowed under the  principles  of  encourage. the  justice And  life  plan  that  the  remote p r o v i d e r w i l l want to  y e t where i t i s not acceptable of  to i n t e r f e r e i n  an i n d i v i d u a l i t i s acceptable  to  interfere  with someone e l s e ' s l i f e p l a n f o r a t h i r d p a r t y unless the and the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r are taken t o be one. the  intimate  provider  provider  is  again  are  taken t o be one  diminished  to  that  I f the c h i l d  Justified Rawls  have  of  supporter  of the  ability  for to  addition that  that  capacity  capacity  a  the  justice  for  sense  engage  to  the  a  sense  of  third of  justice  paternalistic  there  the  additional  There  is  those  who  tolerant  a l l who no  of  a  of a  i s not synonymous with Therefore,  apply to those who  interference principle  the in  for  that  are  being  t h e i r own  good,  j u s t i c e as f a i r n e s s  have the c a p a c i t y f o r the sense of  differentiation  have  Possession  p r i n c i p l e of p a t e r n a l i s m which ensures  to  to  of j u s t i c e .  justice  su bj ec te d  applies  as f a i r n e s s a p p l i e s to a l l who  in deliberative rationality.  principles  is  child.  Interference  argues  the  and  the r o l e of remote  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r , r a t h e r than an a c t u a l p r o v i d e r f o r the  4.6.  child  justice.  t h a t puts a p r i o r i t y on t r e a t i n g  sense of j u s t i c e more f a i r l y ,  them, than those who  or being more  have not y e t achieved  a sense  of  justice.  Both those who  who  are capable  of a sense of j u s t i c e are to be t r e a t e d e q u a l l y .  There  two  are  conceptions  the two p r i n c i p l e s of j u s t i c e . is will  that  related  almost  have a sense of j u s t i c e and  to  certainly  the  those  of e q u a l i t y t h a t c o r r e l a t e with The  first  conception  of e q u a l i t y  " d i s t r i b u t i o n of goods, some of which  give h i g h e r 106  s t a t u s or p r e s t i g e to  those  who  are  more  relates  to  principle  the  (Rawls 1971,  result  fair  and  p.511)  second p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e .  of j u s t i c e which p r o v i d e s  that  in  favored..."  in  This  conception  I t i s the  f o r the s o c i a l arrangements  a d i s t r i b u t i v e share of goods c h a r a c t e r i z e d  e f f i c i e n t s o c i a l cooperation.  The  t h a t w i l l compensate f o r the  the  intimate  The  second  remote p r o v i d e r i s  provider conception  with  l i m i t i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e s of  r e s p e c t to d i s t r i b u t i o n of goods.  of e q u a l i t y r e f e r s to the equal r i g h t of  each person, i r r e s p e c t i v e of s o c i a l p o s i t i o n , to r e c e i v e from  every only  natural  other by  person.  the  duty  first  T h i s k i n d of e q u a l i t y i s p r e s c r i b e d  of mutual r e s p e c t , where r e s p e c t  moral being.  possibility  conscientious  that  refuser  the  i s owed to human  I t i s p o s s i b l e f o r the remote p r o v i d e r  t o determine i f the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r separate  respect  p r i n c i p l e of j u s t i c e , but a l s o by  beings as moral persons.  the  by  a p o s i t i o n t o i n f l u e n c e the s o c i a l arrangements i n p r o v i d i n g  services  not  second  The  determining f a c t o r i s the measure of  'the in  i s t r e a t i n g the c h i l d as a  a  adult  the c h i l d w i l l be'  can be  a  case  where the i n t i m a t e  provider  would obey. Rawls  gives  conscientious  refuser  disobedience. limited of  an  (Rawls  to  Rawls'  1971,  as  attention part  analysis  of  to  the  problem  pp.  of  conscientious  of  t o p e r s o n a l l y engage i n war  363-376)  I t i s p o s s i b l e to  c i v i l disobedience and  and  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r has 107  civil  the r e f u s a l  between n a t i o n s . ' t r a n s l a t e ' Rawls'  conscientious  decided  the  refusal is  r e f u s a l to  case of an emerging a d u l t r e f u s i n g to act i n a way  respective  of  h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of  c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the law of nations  individual  conceptions the  specific  that  i s the r a t i o n a l way  the to  act.  In  differentiating  conscientious  refusal,  disobedience  between  Rawls  or r e f u s a l .  civil  disobedience  and  uses the i n t e n t i o n of the a c t of  Where the a c t i s c a r r i e d out i n order  to  convince other members of the s o c i a l union t h a t there should  be  a  change,  specific  it  is  an  qualifications  a c t of c i v i l outlined  by  c a r r i e d out simply to a v o i d complying such  a  way,  Nozickean  disobedience s u b j e c t to Rawls.  Where the a c t i s  with the  'order' to a c t i n  i t i s a case of c o n s c i e n t i o u s r e f u s a l .  world  U n l i k e the  where the b a l k i n g r e c r u i t c o u l d even decide to  r e f u s e membership a l t o g e t h e r , i n the w e l l - o r d e r e d s o c i e t y of the Rawlsian  world there i s no o p t i o n of  well-ordered  society  is  'dropping out.'  essentially  rational  Since the anyone  who  attempted to drop out would o b v i o u s l y not be capable of managing his  own  affairs  therefore 'forced the  through  require  paternalistic  conscription'  right  of  well-ordered  deliberative  raised  in  such  a  doubly  important.  to  question  be ensured.  way  and would  i n t e r v e n t i o n . Because of t h i s  p r o p e r t y , i t i s extremely  members  society  rationality  The  important  specifics  that  within  the  need f o r the c h i l d to be  t h a t he can be q u e s t i o n e r i s t h e r e f o r e  I f the  'adult who  the c h i l d w i l l be'  i s to  have c o n t r o l over determining h i s p l a n of l i f e beyond t h a t which the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r has adjusting would than there  that  not. a  plan  in  ways t h a t the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r  I f the w e l l - o r d e r e d s o c i e t y i s to be anything more  static must  life  i n s t i l l e d i n him he must be capable of  an  union  ongoing  resulting  from the o r i g i n a l  POP,  supply of emerging members who  are  capable of q u e s t i o n i n g what t h e i r ancestors have taken to be  the  rational  be  social  choice. 108  I to  claimed above t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r the remote p r o v i d e r  determine  room'  i f the  f o r the  provider  could  intimate  'adult wait  who  p r o v i d e r has l e f t  the c h i l d w i l l be'.  until  was  correct.  provider, with the  However,  h i s task  I f the remote  the c h i l d was an a d u l t , then there  would be no problem i n determining did  'maneuvering  i f what the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r  s i n c e the remote p r o v i d e r i s a l s o a  i s t o provide  f o r the c h i l d and i n t e r v e n e  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r on the c h i l d ' s b e h a l f at the time of unjustified  interference.  As p o i n t e d out above Rawls has  suggested t h a t the l e s s we know the person the more we must on  the  basic  structure  paternalisitic must  putting was  actions.  necessarily  position.  to  provide  I  rely  us with guidance f o r our  conclude t h a t the remote p r o v i d e r  a c t as he would f o r h i m s e l f from the o r i g i n a l  The remote p r o v i d e r i s t h e r e f o r e , a c c o r d i n g t o Rawls, himself  i n the  i n the p l a c e of the c h i l d but as i f the c h i l d  original  position.  The i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r , on the  other hand, puts h e r s e l f i n the p l a c e of the c h i l d but the c h i l d as  the  life  adult  t h a t the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r envisages.  While the  p l a n o f the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i s supposedly a p l a n t h a t i s  consistent  with  the  of  complexity  o f human a c t i v i t y . from  own  structure,  duplicate  provider  her  basic plan  consideration  and  i t may  simply  be  a  t h e r e f o r e not c o n s t i t u t e the  I f the p l a n d e r i v e d by the remote of  the  child  i n the  original  p o s i t i o n i s not a d u p l i c a t e p l a n then i t i s b e t t e r and should be p r o v i d e d t o the c h i l d . In  the  ensure  that  knowledge  original the  that  POP  will  position do  created  not  benefit  make them  109  by  Rawls, i n order t o  d e c i s i o n s on the b a s i s of disproportionately,  i t is  necessary  to  must  also  Given  the  child's  have  remote  difficult  provider's  and  to  talents  maintain  the  role  ignorance this  veil  debate  which  deliberative Where  the  remote p r o v i d e r viewing  the  the  desired  achievement  end  the  the  succeeding? questions with  questions  plan  (Rawls required  'perfect  to reach a r a t i o n a l the a c t i o n from the  The  questions  most  are:  have  principles  (2). Does the p l a n f o r  have  pp.  the  411-3)  most Not  which  be  must  others?  likelihood  of  only are these  the  determine i f the a c t i o n s are c o n s i s t e n t  indicated  and the  the  e f f e c t i v e i n the sense of the most  chosen  procedural  opportunity'  the  original  i n c l u d e a l l the d e s i r e d aims p l u s  1971, to  The  choice.  justice,'  but  they  are  also  used t o determine i f the general p r i n c i p l e s of  I  not  (1). Are the means to  are s u f f i c i e n t with r e s p e c t t o the i n s t i t u t i o n of As  is  the  reduced to the same k i n d  the l e a s t expenditure?  achievement of the end Does  ignorance  which are posed r e l a t e to the  choice.  for  of  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r ' s i n t e r f e r e n c e with  questions  rational  of the d e t a i l s of  occur w i t h i n each i n d i v i d u a l engaged i n  r a t i o n a l i t y attempting  for  (3).  ignorance  of the c h i l d i n the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n .  must  p o s i t i o n questions child,  v e i l of  i n the case where the remote p r o v i d e r i s  debate between the two p r o v i d e r s i s now of  The  be p l a c e d around the c h i l d i n the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n .  wants  assuming  a v e i l of ignorance.  previously  'ability  it  is  the  justice  child-raising.  the  'having  to postpone' which are the f a c t o r s  p r o t e c t e d from unnecessary i n t e r f e r e n c e .  It is  second q u e s t i o n above, the requirement t h a t the p l a n be possible,  an  that  most  inclusive  critical  areas.  From  the A r i s t o t e l i a n P r i n c i p l e we have the n e c e s s i t y of  having  110  queries  these  the  the  c h i l d r a i s e d with a p o t e n t i a l  a c t i v i t i e s both f o r the c h i l d ' s union.  It  provider  i s to  will  be  be  t o perform the most complex of  good, and the good o f the s o c i a l  expected,  especially  therefore,  concerned  t h a t the remote  with  the  issue  of  inclusiveness.  4.7.  Rawls This  with  Summarized  concludes  respect  to  the examination of Rawls' theory of j u s t i c e child-raising.  My n o t i o n of the two k i n d s of  child-raisers  necessary  conception  the two aspects of the r a t i o n a l person who makes  of  for child-raising  r a t i o n a l c h o i c e s a c c o r d i n g t o a p l a n of l i f e the  POP's  able  to  assume  basic structure. step  the  parallels  t h a t i s governed by  The r a t i o n a l person i s , o f course,  behind the v e i l of ignorance h i m s e l f i n order t o  role  of  POP.  In the case of c h i l d - r a i s i n g , the  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r assumes the r o l e of the person making choices  according  to a plan of l i f e ,  only  restricted intimate  allows  sense  f o r the  required  by  Nozick's a n a l y s i s ,  intimate  the  rational  while the remote p r o v i d e r  assumes the r o l e of the c h i l d i n the POP. contrast,  Rawls'  provider  child's  by  i n a very  r i g h t t o engage an  p r o v i d e r f o r the purpose of c o r r e c t i n g  a  misallocation  of h o l d i n g s . Clearly, paternalistic of  since  those  interference,  in  the  Liberal  j u s t i f i e d i n t e r f e r e n c e s connected w i t h c h i l d - r a i s i n g .  Liberal  position,  is  accept  they w i l l accept a much f u l l e r range  argued t h a t the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r p a t e r n a l i s t i c the  position  limited 111  by  I have  interferences i n  the same p r i n c i p l e s o f  rational  choice  which  govern  deliberative  r a t i o n a l i t y regarding  This  sharp  is  in  position  who  contrast  relegate  the  the  individual  t h e i r own  with  those  engaged  plans  in  and  the  in  actions.  Conservative  r a i s i n g of c h i l d r e n to an  intimate  r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t i s g e n e r a l l y beyond the scope of  justification  of  'Conservative'  social  sees  arrangements.  the experiences of being  factors hand,  available  position  to  rational  becomes  kinds  public  points  system  which  of  I  r e q u i r e d , one  of  which  personal the  other  the general  contend  our  which  society.  must  the  In the L i b e r a l an  to represent POP  be  claim  the  'Liberal'  individual  Furthermore, there the  are  personal  plan.  s e c t i o n of Chapter One,  principles  arrangements  in  f o r the c h i l d .  the other,  the concluding  as environmental.  deliberation  of p r o v i d e r s  l i f e p l a n and In  On  'the a d u l t the c h i l d w i l l be,  child-raising  the  engages  interference.  as  the case where the a c t i o n s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g l i m i t  conceptualizes  of  r a i s e d from c h i l d h o o d  beyond the realm of o u t s i d e in  good  two  As Ennis suggested the  I l i s t e d a series  s a t i s f i e d by any to  justify  Consideration  the  general social  of these p o i n t i n  r e l a t i o n to the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n as presented by Rawls i n d i c a t e s the  following.  structure, the  that  child-raising  protected  It which  is  the t h i r d requirement of Rawls' b a s i c s t i p u l a t e s t h a t a l l persons i n v o l v e d i n  enterprise  are  subject  POP  therefore problematic.  Rawls argues that  the  treatment of the c h i l d i s n e c e s s a r i l y accepted by  the  with no c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e .  provider  and  by the same general p r i n c i p l e s , which i s  C l e a r l y c h i l d r e n are t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y . different  to  is  also  treated d i f f e r e n t l y .  The  intimate  I t i s not p o s s i b l e to  claim  that  the  principles  provider's  overriding  actions.  It  reason  for  argument  o f the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r ' s  to  children,  children,  is  a  need  child-raising. simply  that  that  the  endowment  of  i t i s p o s s i b l e t o base the  to The  a necessary  T h i s i s not, however, a suggestion introduce  not  endowing  that  special principles related to  endowment of o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o c h i l d r e n i s  a n t i c i p a t o r y phase i n the r e c o g n i t i o n of the  i n v i o l a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s . is  is  of the  f o r s u b j e c t i n g the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r t o the d i r e c t i o n  of the remote p r o v i d e r . there  child-raising  i s my c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t i s i n the nature raising  opportunities  o f p a t e r n a l i s m apply t o the remote  Where the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r  the c h i l d with the a p p r o p r i a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s ,  she i s i n e f f e c t denying the i n v i o l a b i l i t y of the c h i l d ' s f u t u r e individual  rights.  anticipated the  She  has  no  r i g h t s of the c h i l d .  r i g h t t o i n t e r f e r e with the  Therefore  the i n t e r f e r e n c e o f  remote p r o v i d e r with the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r on b e h a l f o f the  c h i l d i s the e q u i v a l e n t of any t h i r d p a r t y advocacy s i t u a t i o n . The have  g e n e r a l systems o f p r i n c i p l e s posed by Nozick and Rawls  been  Neither  system  providing are  examined  the  completely  perspective  satisfies  of  the  child-raising.  requirements  for  a s a t i s f a c t o r y s e t o f a c t i o n - g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e s which  directly  child-raising. accounting  from  translatable  to  guiding  our  institutions  for  The two systems combined do come very c l o s e t o  f o r our commonsense n o t i o n of c h i l d - r a i s i n g .  This i s  not s u r p r i s i n g given our r e l i a n c e on both systems t o e x p l a i n the social  arrangements o f our s o c i e t y i n g e n e r a l .  is  the p o i n t s o f c o n f l i c t between the t h e o r e t i c a l p o s i t i o n s  that  in we  can  see  Furthermore, i t  the b a s i s f o r the t e n s i o n s which emerge when  proponents  of  agreement  over  institutions on  the a  two  positions  policy  which  of c h i l d - r a i s i n g .  some o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  t o use b o t h  justificatory  attempt is  to  required  In the next  114  to  at  guide  chapter I w i l l  that are p e r t i n e n t  systems  arrive  concurrently.  t o any  an the  touch  attempt  Notes on Chapter Four 4-1  As  political  with Nozick philosophy  contribution application  4-2  The  of  of  aimed  determining  t h a t of Rawls. at  highlighting  the  meaning  of  1  My the  i n the  i t becomes c l e a r t h a t Rawls adopts  the i n t e r e s t s  of  the  provider  individual and  of the c h i l d .  The  intimate  second i s t h a t of the  i s on the p a t e r n a l i s t i c  (a) the exact nature harmful  we  of p a t e r n a l i s m are good examples:  burden of proof  the  The  two  of people i n g e n e r a l .  Dworkin's p r i n c i p l e s 1. The  child.  In  f i r s t i s that  i t i s l i m i t e d to the o r d i n a r y knowledge  a l l have of the nature  4-3  is  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r and i t r e l i e s on the s p e c i a l  knowledge remote  chapter  of the c h i l d pervades d i s c u s s i o n s of p a t e r n a l i s m .  r e s t of t h i s chapter  the  this  re-arrangement  problem  perspectives of  a  of  I wish to p o i n t out t h a t the  of Rawls* b a s i c s t r u c t u r e t o c h i l d - r a i s i n g .  interest' the  is  (note 3-1)  agent.  of the b e n e f i c i a l consequence  effect  of  the  actions  must  and be  demonstrable. (b)  the  must be 2.  The  probability  of the occurrence  effect  high.  least  restrictive  used. (Dworkin  of the  1972) 115  p a t e r n a l i s t i c approach must be  4-4  The  principles  of r a t i o n a l decision-making as used by  Rawls are: 1.  effective  means  r e a l i z e s the end 2.  most  -  we  are to adopt that a c t i o n which  i n the best  inclusive  -  way.  our  actions  must i n c l u d e the most  additional benefits possible. 3.  greater  l i k e l i h o o d - we  g r e a t e s t p r o b a b i l i t y of (Rawls 1971,  Sidgwick "...  whole  as  all  present  the v a r i o u s  seek i f the  p o i n t of time, a c c u r a t e l y foreseen in  imagination. composition  deliberative  reflection  Sidgwick's rational  and  d e s i r e and  notion plan  with from  to  for  a  Macmillan, 1907), pp.  individual's  of impulsive  and  is  the one  rationality."  116  the  Adjusting  can say t h a t  (...)  7th  the  which he would  (Rawls 1971,  The Methods of E t h i c s , lllf.  is  f o r c e s t h a t r e s u l t s from  the choice of plans, we person  the  adequately  good  meeting c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s .  deliberative Sidgwick  An  by him  the  consequences  courses of conduct open to him were, at  hypothetical  choose  success.  c h a r a c t e r i z e s a person's f u t u r e good on  what he would now  realized  the  pp.411-3)  4-5  of  must s e l e c t the a c t i o n with  ed.  pp.416-7) (London,  CHAPTER FIVE  LIMITS OF INTERFERENCE  5.1.  "The Funnel o f Childhood" deMause's psychogenic theory  of h i s t o r y  (deMause 1974, p.3)  suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t there may be some way of a n a l y z i n g the  "funnel  must of  of  childhood"  pass from g e n e r a t i o n being  able  itself, allow  to  to generation.  describe  possession us  through which the p s y c h i c  of  the  the  structure  While the p o s s i b i l i t y  mechanism  i s interesting i n  d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y  t o make any d i f f e r e n c e t o the r a i s i n g of c h i l d r e n now  or i n the f u t u r e .  The p o t e n t i a l t o i n t e n t i o n a l l y r a i s e c h i l d r e n  i n a way t h a t w i l l produce a s o c i e t y t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h our moral  and  political  child-raising  beliefs  actions  in  requires  terms  that  a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of our are c o n s i s t e n t with the  premises  upon which our s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s b u i l t .  premises  are unanimously h e l d by the members o f the s o c i e t y the  exercise  should  In  a  be one o f r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d  pluralistic  optimistic however, boundaries justified general.  to be  hope  useful  of  the  Where these  deduction.  s o c i e t y such as ours i t appears t o be o v e r l y f o r a straightforward process. to range  have of  I t would,  some i d e a of the l o c a t i o n o f the the  actions f o r c h i l d - r a i s i n g  by the range o f conceptions o f j u s t i f i a b l e a c t i o n s i n  Let  us  society's list  assume  f o r the moment with deMause t h a t , "...a  child-rearing  of  cultural  practices  traits.  are  not j u s t one item i n a  They are the very c o n d i t i o n f o r the  t r a n s m i s s i o n and development o f a l l other c u l t u r a l elements, and place  definite  spheres  of  to  sustain  no  longer  There into  limits  history.  on  what  can  be achieved i n a l l other  S p e c i f i c c h i l d h o o d experiences must occur  s p e c i f i c c u l t u r a l t r a i t s and once these experiences occur  the  trait  disappears."  (deMause 1974, p.3)  i s a r i s k t h a t i n f o l l o w i n g t h i s assumption p s y c h i c determinism.  necessary  to  accept  child-rearing Otherwise  slip  F o r my purposes, however, i t i s o n l y  that  affects  one w i l l  what  what  happens the  to  a  child  during  child-become-adult  does.  the i n t e r f e r e n c e s t h a t the c h i l d - r a i s e r imposes on the  child  become inconveniences without import beyond the moment i n  which  they  occur.  child-raisers the  It  usually  child-raiser  consideration child  actions.  what  in on  on t h i s assumption.  This  the  the  with  the  child  course,  the  with  heat  long-term  of  i s not t o suggest  the moment,  impact  of t h e i r  are  no  that  always  child-raising  There i s , however, i n my experience, adequate evidence  to suggest t h a t the p s y c h o a n a l y t i c t r a d i t i o n i s w e l l in  Otherwise,  impact the i n t e r f e r e n c e may have on the  future.  child-raisers, deliberating  operate  i s interfering  of  i n the  i s a l s o necessary t o acknowledge that  sense  child-raising  that  child-raisers  actions  have  established  g e n e r a l l y accept t h a t  an e f f e c t on what t h e i r c h i l d  e v e n t u a l l y become.  118  their will  5.2.  Social There  Arrangements is  another  child-raisers. men  are  (Rawls  not  directly  the  social  efforts  their  arrangements  but  s o c i a l arrangements."  that  people  to  the  shape  are  childhood. arrangements  that  people  will  the  social  arrangements  who  child-raiser necessary  fall  into  could  Since my  is  concerned  with  to  create  from  one  them.  for child-raising  negative  emerge  shapes  who  raised  claims  shape  of  individual  The  among  i n f l u e n c e d by the i n t e r f e r e n c e s they experienced w h i l e  The  being  prevails  These assumptions are e q u i v a l e n t  social  r a i s e d from  First,  to  p.547)  that  that  c o n s t r a i n t s of nature are recognized,  powerless  1971,  claim  being  "The  assumption  the  of three be  categories.  negative  focus has  with  any  for  the  been upon the  minimizing i n t e r f e r e n c e s  i t i s assumed t h a t the c h i l d i s not  a s e l f - o p p r e s s i v e s o c i a l arrangement.  s o c i a l arrangement i s the k i n d t h a t the  arises  sustained  state.  anarchist  Nozick*s attempts to convince  the a n a r c h i s t of the harmless i n e v i t a b i l i t y of the minimal s t a t e would c e r t a i n l y 1981,  p.69)  not change the confirmed a n a r c h i s t ' s mind.  It  is  therefore  necessary  p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t some c h i l d - r a i s e r s  may  dominating  their  negative the  taken  thus  preparing  leave  actions  which  would  arrangement have been ignored as an i n d i c a t i o n  investigated.  open  children  lead  to create a The  it  fact  that  to t h i s k i n d  of  i n t h i s essay i s not to  be  t h a t there are not s i g n i f i c a n t  Rather  the  convey the hegemony of a  s o c i a l arrangement f o r themselves. (5-1)  child-raising  social  be  group  to  (Paul  i s s u e s to  r e f l e c t s the omission i n Ennis' 119  analysis  that  interior  and  foci  for  there  may  exterior  change.  be  a case f o r i n t e r f e r i n g with both  factors  and  i g n o r i n g most r e s t r i c t i o n s  T h i s would appear to be  the p o s i t i o n  on  of  the  which people  can  s o c i a l arrangement of  the  r a d i c a l democrat. The  second  create  i s a n e u t r a l one.  minimal  state  provides  for  has  possible  no  social  T h i s i s the  as d e s c r i b e d by Nozick. the  p r o t e c t i o n of the  s p e c i a l powers t h a t are  Nozick  is  emphatic  prohibits  arrangement  any  that  asymmetry  his of  While the  r i g h t s of the  minimal  individual i t  beyond those of the derivation  powers  of the  favoring  individual.  minimal  the  the  status  powers  of  the  individual.  state  state.  r e s u l t i s a s o c i a l arrangement which n e i t h e r adds nor from  state  The  takes away  I t simply preserves  the  quo. The  third  positive  one  upholding  possible  as  portrayed  Rawls'  distributive  transfer,  These and  individuals  have  well  of  of  social  arrangement i s  the  the  i n s t i t u t i o n s necessary  for  justice.  power  in  institutions  distribute  as  in  principles  justice  individual.  kind  as  goods to  be  to  ensure  redistribution  fair  stabilize  equality  for  to t h a t of  any  able  positions the  Rawls argues t h a t without these powers the unable  institutions  addition  must and  The  of  to  allocate,  with r e s p e c t  to  value of h o l d i n g s .  i n s t i t u t i o n s would opportunity  be  through  of wealth.  Once  there  i s a s o c i a l arrangement i t i s important to know  the  power  is  how There  are  individual  again can  be  distributed three  between i n d i v i d u a l s  possible  situations.  taken to count f o r nothing. 120  and  groups.  First,  In t h i s case,  the the  group  i s the  this a  e n t i t y which must be p r e s e r v e d .  abound i n the  clear-cut  occurs  in  meaningless  except  relative  is  kind  the  good  Rawls' is  the  fate  status  f o r the  the  significance.  In  by  justice.  Nozick,  creating  of  the  The  situation,  individual  respect  to the  (5-2)  From  effect  the  acquire the to  providing  the  status  only  entity  the  with  of  only  which  second  and  is  entity close  ascribed  by  individuals with  to  t o the  that group  group.  combinations of b e n e f i t  r e l a t i v e status  get  The  systematized  of the  case where the  to  the  i n d i v i d u a l with  have considered only two  Nozick we  i n t h i s essay.  individual is in  significance.  A group cannot  more power or s i g n i f i c a n c e than an i n d i v i d u a l , with s o c i a l arrangement was  benefits  allows the  to  the  contractual,  individual.  n e u t r a l with r e s p e c t Rawls on the  other  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements of  the  to c r e a t e a s o c i a l arrangement which attempts to balance  the  power of the are  and  group we  r e s u l t t h a t the  hand POP  any  possible  one  t h i r d status are  there i s no  nine  individual is  This i s c l e a r l y a s i t u a t i o n  o n l y to each i n d i v i d u a l c o l l e c t e d i n t o the Out  thing  good of i n d i v i d u a l s  i t i s the  individuals this  of  i n d i v i d u a l occurs where there  a l l f a m i l i a r and of  of the  team's success.  group as a whole.  are  where  described  where  However t h i s k i n d  i n terms of the  principles  that  humans.  of b a l a n c i n g between the  of the  with which we  for  sports  possible some  non-human world i t i s more d i f f i c u l t to give  example team  While examples of  i n d i v i d u a l and  the  group.  D i f f e r e n t k i n d s of power  a l l o c a t e d to each i n order to ensure t h a t the p r i n c i p l e s  justice  are  upheld.  argued  by  Rawls  The to  be  of  r e s u l t of t h i s s o c i a l arrangement i s positive  for  all  representative  individuals.  5.3.  The At  (5-3)  Lower L i m i t s  the  lower  interference  from  boundary, where t h e r e  w i t h the  individual  to propose  a clarification  in  order  to  was  reasonably  positions the  ensure  create  a  t h a t the  clause,'  social  state  actual  that state.  'adjustment  raised,  justified  allowed in  the  enactment of  the p r i n c i p l e  the  wealth  between the  being  raised  available  to  child  provider necessary a  to ensure  level  which  justifying parent only  a  state. child  child  very  for  role  purpose  of  other  i n t e r f e r e n c e by  for  those  in  entitled, of  an and  transfer  of  i n which  t o be  The  I  encouraging  the  the  person  the  of  i n order  to  i s an  one  can  reasonably  to redistribute  122  For  intimate positions  generally  reach  accepted  between  others.  to  is  Nozickean to  'join  the up.'  unjustifiable  Child-raising which  the  expect  the  the  the  There  have access child  a  purpose  and  remote p r o v i d e r i s  to  to  involved.  relationship  the  and  called  opportunity to  i n f l u e n c e of  association  invoked  which  people  the  history  of holdings  holdings  t h a t which  just  transfer  Conservative position.  intimate  a  that there  has  compensation  f o r remote p r o v i d e r s i n the  Any  the  of  c o u l d engage i n  remote p r o v i d e r or o u t s i d e r can  the  essentially  child  i s beyond the  necessary  by  for  two  the  establishes.  limited  The  transfer  that the  i t was  well-off  he  person  ensures  approximates  history  and  better-off  this  less  which  eliciting  the  allowable  clarification,  with  redistribute  least  principle  relationship the  i s the  distributions  This  arrangement a  being  of Nozick's  close to the  within  Nozick  parent's  child  is is  principle holdings  to  the  child.  through to  use  If  the  parent  does not r e d i s t r i b u t e wealth  o f the p r i n c i p l e o f t r a n s f e r the c h i l d i s e n t i t l e d  establish  relationships  with  others who have an excess of  h o l d i n g s , with the hope t h a t the new p r o v i d e r  w i l l t r a n s f e r some  of h i s h o l d i n g s t o the c h i l d . In  the  well-off  case  than  where  the parent  they should be a c c o r d i n g t o the j u s t i f y i n g t a l e ,  they, i n t u r n , may e x e r c i s e to  claims t h a t they are l e s s  t h e i r adjustment c l a u s e with  some other person who i s b e t t e r - o f f and i n t u r n may t r a n s f e r  t h e i r newly a c q u i r e d h o l d i n g s t o t h e i r c h i l d . an  respect  association  less  does  well-off  individuals exception the  to  holding  person.  not r e s u l t i n a t r a n s f e r of h o l d i n g s , the  individual  with  whom  this  In the case where  may  to  form  look a  f o r other  better-off  relationship.  The  only  i s where the b e t t e r - o f f person has a c q u i r e d  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n  unjustly  from the l e s s  well-off  In such a case, the d i r e c t - l i n k sense of the p r i n c i p l e  of compensation mandates t h a t there be some r e a l l o c a t i o n between the two  involved.  What  kind  of  child-raising, the  are  interferences  with c h i l d r e n , r e s u l t i n g from  j u s t i f i e d a t the lower boundary?  Except i n  case where the c h i l d i s b e t t e r - o f f than the c h i l d - r a i s e r and  has  reached  that  state  child-raiser,  there  the  Does  power  child. to  by  infringing  on  the r i g h t s o f the  i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e t h i s mean t h a t the i n t i m a t e  influence  the  child?  Certainly  provider not 1  that  influence  the the  parent child  or by  intimate  transferring  provider whatever  has no  When one  c o n s i d e r s the power i n h e r e n t i n the p r i n c i p l e of t r a n s f e r , clear  with  i t is  i s e n t i t l e d to holdings  or  p o s i t i o n s they possess as long as the c h i l d r e t a i n s the r i g h t to refuse  or  transfer while for  postpone  the  transfer.  The  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r must  her e n t i t l e m e n t s over to the c h i l d i n such a way  it  probably w i l l not come to pass,  that,  i t i s always p o s s i b l e  the c h i l d t o become a c o n s c i e n t i o u s o b j e c t o r with r e s p e c t to  those  e n t i t l e m e n t s gained  5.4.  during  childhood.  Upper L i m i t s from Rawls At the upper end of the s c a l e of i n t e r f e r e n c e with the  in  the  process  of c h i l d - r a i s i n g ,  child  i t i s i n the b a l a n c i n g of the  p r o v i d e r s ' power t h a t the l i m i t s to j u s t i f i a b l e i n t e r f e r e n c e are detectible. intimate  The  k i n d of p r o v i d e r ,  each.  The  i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i s , as one  the the  result  of  intimate is  based  the  less  as to the immediate needs of the  immediate  position this  the  prospective  provider assumed  of  actually  that  the  would  of making  these needs are seen from the p e r s p e c t i v e of the  assumes  same  for  assumptions  provider,  It  each  i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d with the c h i l d and capable  reasonable Since  of  and the remote, determines the power and the l i m i t s of  interference expect,  perspective  child.  intimate  need the more the p r o v i d e r  'adult the c h i l d w i l l be.' perspective  (5-4)  is  The  that  the  e s t a b l i s h e s the c h i l d ' s l i f e p l a n .  the s e l e c t i o n of the c h i l d ' s l i f e p l a n i s  on the same p r i n c i p l e s from the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n and kinds  Therefore  of it  interfering  rational can  with  be  choices  assumed  as the p r o v i d e r ' s l i f e  that  there  is  no  the  plan.  basis  the c h i l d - r a i s e r on the b a s i s of her p l a n  for not  agreeing with the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e . The  remote p r o v i d e r has  a very d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e on 124  the  child  and  therefore  child-raising.  Due  on  the  interferences  required f o r  t o l a c k of i n t i m a t e knowledge, the remote  provider  must  position  i n order t o a d j u d i c a t e on the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r ' s  plan  assume the p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d i n the o r i g i n a l  f o r the  principle  child.  The  A r i s t o t e l i a n P r i n c i p l e , the prime  j u s t i f y i n g the w e l l - o r d e r e d  places  a premium on the complexity  social  union  satisfy the  human be  on  union,  of human a c t i v i t y w i t h i n the In s t r i v i n g t o  the remote p r o v i d e r i s concerned with  the  opportunities  made  a v a i l a b l e t o the  For the c h i l d t o engage i n a h i g h l e v e l o f complexity i n activities,  surpassed.  plan  f o r the  child  to  plan,  the  of  principle,  limitations  child.  s o c i e t y as a s o c i a l  and w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l l i f e p l a n s .  this  life  the  case,  the l i m i t a t i o n s of the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r  must  Where the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r e s t a b l i s h e s the l i f e 'adult the c h i l d w i l l be' with allowance f o r the  grow beyond t h a t p l a n or a t l e a s t opt f o r a d i f f e r e n t remote p r o v i d e r can be s a t i s f i e d t h a t the p r o v i s i o n s  basic  structure  however,  where  are the  being met f o r the c h i l d .  intimate  establishes  a  restrictive  life  the  p r o v i d e r t o i n t e r f e r e with the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i n  remote  order of  to  the  p l a n f o r the c h i l d ,  provider  In the  i t i s w i t h i n the power o f  remove the r e s t r i c t i o n s of the l i f e p l a n .  remote  T h i s power  p r o v i d e r ensures t h a t the o p p o r t u n i t y aspect of  the theory o f primary goods i s made a v a i l a b l e t o a l l c h i l d r e n .  125  5.5.  Positional  5.5.1.  Conservative  The the  principles  political  positions, analysis are in  Prohibitions  Child-Raisers of  c h i l d - r a i s i n g which I have d e r i v e d from  philosophies  each  entail  of  of  in their application  child-raiser  acceptance entails then  of  that  the  of  own  within  the  same  the  efforts  child-raisers.  of the p r i n c i p l e s of  principles  Furthermore, since of  action  p r i n c i p l e s apply to other  the  two  paternalism  raise  political  accepted  one the  necessarily individuals, logical  ' i n t e r f e r i n g ' with  particular child.  Finally,  p h i l o s o p h i e s examined the  degree of  applies  any  An  action  a d m i s s i b i l i t y of more than  'other k i n d ' of p r o v i d e r to  Liberal  that, where c h i l d - r a i s e r s  each c h i l d .  general  and  c h i l d - r a i s e r s i n each p o s i t i o n must accept the  possibility their  the  for  for  reveals  g e n e r a l , they must accept the  kind  Conservative  prohibitions  of these p r o h i b i t i o n s  consistent  the  equally  to  the  child  and  the  intimate provider. I  have  accept kinds  argued t h a t  some that  can  retribution  on  be  clause.' better-off  individuals  to  purpose  allowing  provider  for correcting dealt  schemes.  'adjustment duty  device  those i n the  of who  has  To The  C o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n must 'misallocations'  beyond  with through dyadic compensation or this  end,  I  have  proposed  the  acceptance of t h i s measure imposes a  individuals  to  allow  less  engage them i n an i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p the  the  principle  of  well-off for  t r a n s f e r t o occur.  the A  allowed a c h i l d , as a l e s s w e l l - o f f person, to 126  employ the adjustment clause with them, because the r e l a t i o n s h i p is  personal,  i s beyond the reach of i n t e r f e r e n c e by any  providers.  The  relationship  directly  intimate  remote  provider  with  the  may,  however,  child.  of  the  p r o v i d e r who breadth  individuals wishes may  a  in  the  minimal  In a case where the  not  j o i n up with  state,  any  ' j o i n up.'  sense,  c h i l d i s an i n t e r f e r e n c e i n the a c t i o n s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g out by the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r .  options  the to  carried  provider more  the  attempts to r e s t r i c t the options of  membership i n the minimal s t a t e , i n such a way  formulation  recruits  state.  This  have  of the  the  remote p r o v i d e r w i l l have to e x p l a i n the  ' j o i n up.'  p o i n t hinges on the premise t h a t i n order to maintain  strong the  to the  In other words, the more  the c h i l d w i l l make a knowledgeable d e c i s i o n to whole  There i s  p r o v i d e r , the more e x t e n s i v e the remote p r o v i d e r s  intimate  child,  Thus i n  Furthermore, the more r e s t r i c t i v e  e f f o r t s at c o n v i n c i n g w i l l have to be. the  remote  however, i n which the remote p r o v i d e r ' s access  intimate  the  p o s i t i o n while the p r o v i d e r s are not s u b j e c t to  s p e c i a l k i n d of i n t e r f e r e n c e n e i t h e r i s the c h i l d .  the  a  seek to p r o v i d e the c h i l d with a g r e a t e r  of o p p o r t u n i t i e s as an i n c e n t i v e to  the Conservative any  initiate  p r o v i d e r i s r e s t r i c t i n g the o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e t o  the c h i l d , to the extent t h a t the c h i l d may rest  remote  individual rights, opportunity  i t i s necessary  that This the that  to opt out of the minimal  o p t i o n w i l l not u s u a l l y be e x e r c i s e d because the  r e c r u i t s know b e t t e r .  127  5.5.2.  Liberal Child-Raisers  For the two the  those  the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n the d i s t i n c t i o n between  kinds of p r o v i d e r s i s c l e a r .  individual  intimate of  in  I t r e f l e c t s the aspects  a d u l t engaged i n making a r a t i o n a l c h o i c e .  p r o v i d e r i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with the  the  child's  l i f e p l a n and  that plan.  The  The  determination  the a c t i o n s r e q u i r e d t o give  c h i l d the o p p o r t u n i t y to f u l f i l l  of  the  remote p r o v i d e r  i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with ensuring t h a t the l i f e p l a n s e l e c t e d for  each c h i l d i s the l e a s t r e s t r i c t i v e p o s s i b l e .  also the  T h i s concern  extends to the a c t i o n s used to prepare the c h i l d f o r u s i n g available  perspective  opportunities.  of  the  The  c h i l d i n the o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n i n order  determine  the  appropriateness  actions.  Due  to the d i f f i c u l t y  position  of  the  original  position,  child  misunderstandings Liberal  that  of  between  the  the  is  a  the  intimate  f o r the parent  behind  there  position.  philosophy  remote p r o v i d e r assumes the  veil  strong two  kinds  As  one  would  accepts  the  principles  provider's  i n assuming the  of ignorance possibility  i n the  of b a s i c  of p r o v i d e r s i n the  expect, of  in  a  political  paternalism,  empowers the s o c i a l union with power g r e a t e r than t h a t by  provider  perspective Liberal  of  the  position  interference su bj ec te d  will  for  prevail,  s i n c e he  basic structure. have  the  more  and  possessed  i n d i v i d u a l s , i n the case of a d i s p u t e between p r o v i d e r s ,  remote  to  the  i s o p e r a t i n g from the  Thus, while those i n the  clearly  defined  powers  of  purposes of c h i l d - r a i s i n g , they a l s o are  to more d i r e c t i n t e r f e r e n c e s from other p r o v i d e r s f o r  the same c h i l d . 128  5.6.  Combinations of P o s i t i o n s  5.6.1.  Endowing with  Before from  the  I  argued  examine  two  principles  Opportunity the  positions,  that  guide  i n Chapter One  e f f e c t of combinations of p r o v i d e r s it  is  necessary  child-raising and Chapter Two,  to  summarize the  f o r each p o s i t i o n .  As I  the u n d e r l y i n g n o t i o n i n  c h i l d - r a i s i n g i s t h a t of p r o v i d i n g the c h i l d with o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Therefore, the  it  i s i n the p r i n c i p l e s of o p p o r t u n i t y from each of  Conservative  and  Liberal  positions  that  I  take  the  p r i n c i p l e s of c h i l d - r a i s i n g . In  the  C o n s e r v a t i v e p o s i t i o n the c h i l d - r a i s i n g v e r s i o n s of  the  principles  not  o n l y so t h a t she can e s t a b l i s h her own  but  also  order  acquire  preparation in  are: the  being  such  a way  acquired  the  first, least  dependent  a  for  arrangements position,  o p p o r t u n i t y are: f i r s t ,  the c h i l d i s r a i s e d s o c i a l arrangements,  so t h a t she can engage i n an i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n  to  raised  of  an  of  adult.  the  available  holdings  during of  in  Second, the c h i l d must be  as t o be able t o opt i n or out of  principles any  child-raising.  For the  social Liberal  o p p o r t u n i t y i n terms of c h i l d r e n  s o c i a l arrangement must be to the advantage of  well-off. on  share  there  Second, o p t i n g i n or out of a p o s i t i o n i s being  equal  position for a l l .  129  opportunity  to  attain  the  5.6.2.  The Combinations  The  final  point  incompatibility  between  child-raising. providers. intimate they The  be  examined  the  There It  and  to  are  two  the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f  positions  four  possible  with  respect  to  combinations  of  can be assumed t h a t i n the two cases where the  remote p r o v i d e r s are both from the same p o s i t i o n ,  w i l l h o l d the same p r i n c i p l e s . first,  is  There a r e two other  cases.  i n which the remote p r o v i d e r i s from the Conservative  p o s i t i o n , and the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r i s from the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n presents  no  serious  conflicts.  While  the L i b e r a l  intimate  p r o v i d e r would accept  i n t e r f e r e n c e from the remote p r o v i d e r , the  Conservative  provider  convince up.'  remote  the If  child  o n l y f e e l s o b l i g e d t o attempt t o  o f the b e n e f i t s o f f i t t i n g i n and ' j o i n i n g  the i n t i m a t e p r o v i d e r r e q u i r e s the remote p r o v i d e r s '  a s s i s t a n c e , she can u t i l i z e the adjustment clause t o put h e r s e l f i n a p o s i t i o n t o have e n t i t l e m e n t s t r a n s f e r r e d t o her, which she i n t u r n can t r a n s f e r t o the c h i l d . The  second case o f mixed p o s i t i o n s i s p r o b l e m a t i c .  combination, position, The  intimate  expects is  intimate  provider  provider  providers  given  ample  expects  to  provide  from the Conservative  be able t o a d j u d i c a t e on the  a c t i o n s , i n the case where the c h i l d i s not opportunity,  while  no d i r e c t o u t s i d e i n t e r f e r e n c e .  a c o n f l i c t between the a d u l t s .  aware  is  and the remote p r o v i d e r i s from the L i b e r a l p o s i t i o n .  remote  being  the  In t h i s  of  the  T h i s c o n f l i c t , however  Where the remote p r o v i d e r i s  the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the Conservative the  child  with  the 130  intimate provider  opportunity  p o s i t i o n , he can to  exercise  the  adjustment clause required the  i n order  opportunities.  to ensure t h a t the c h i l d r e c e i v e s  the  In t h i s case, while the m o t i v a t i o n  of  L i b e r a l remote p r o v i d e r  provider,  the process,  providing  the  i s not t h a t assumed by the  intimate  w h i l e roundabout, reaches the same goal  child  with  the  opportunities  required  to  p a r t i c i p a t e i n the complexity of human a c t i v i t y . In to  conclusion,  derive  of  Furthermore,  the  it  the has  principles  appropriateness  opportunities. to  conceive  different raised  in  been demonstrated t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e  principles  philosophies  divergent  i t has  child  Liberal been for  of  such a way  who  raising  actions  from  Conservative  political positions.  t h a t the p o s i t i o n s e n t a i l  d i r e c t i n g value  a c h i l d being  positions,  and  verified  However, i t has of  p o s i t i o n s are  of  preparing  judgments children  concerning to  have  been shown t h a t i t i s p o s s i b l e  r a i s e d by c h i l d - r a i s e r s from the  are able to act so t h a t the c h i l d i s  t h a t the c h i l d - r a i s i n g p r i n c i p l e s of both  satisfied.  131  Notes on Chapter  5-1  Five  A good example of t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s the b a s i s f o r  work  by  the  Freire  "culture  the  The  strength  of  of s i l e n c e " as e x p l a i n e d by F r e i r e i s d e r i v e d from  "duality  of  contradictory, concrete  i n Pedagogy of the Oppressed.  the  the  divided  situation  oppressed: beings,  of  they  shaped  oppression  (the by  and  oppressed)  and  violence"  are  existing in a (Freire  1983,  p.40) It  seems  relies  on  to  me  the  that  although the  possibility  of  'pedagogy of the  the  oppressed d i s c o v e r i n g  e q u i v a l e n t of Rawls' o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n , stronger  movement  oppressed'  a g a i n s t j u s t i c e as  the  F r e i r e r e c o g n i z e s a much fairness  than Rawls seems  prepared to acknowledge.  5-2  The  the  combinations of the  individual is  nine p o s s i b i l i t i e s r e f e r r e d  arising  creating,  i n d i v i d u a l and  5-3 his  One  of the  reliance  claim that  from the  with the  three k i n d s of  the  of  power  c r i t i c i s m s to which Rawls must be  on the  ' r e p r e s e n t a t i v e man.'  representative  individuals, be  ratios  to  the  individual  between  the  group.  r e s u l t of the  cannot  l e v e l s of b e n e f i t  s o c i a l arrangement that  three  the  there  to a r i s e from c o n s i d e r i n g  an  basic it  structure  When Rawls makes the is positive  for a l l  i s d i f f i c u l t to understand  i n d i v i d u a l who 132  subjected i s  r e p r e s e n t s those who  do  how not  b e n e f i t from the b a s i c s t r u c t u r e .  5-4  T h i s n o t i o n comes from Ennis'  (Ennis 1976, "The  "prospective r e t r o s p e c t i o n . "  p.14)  long  range  interest  for  mature  parties  r e t r o s p e c t i v e : Did they have equal e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y ? unborn Will  or they,  educational perspective  immature when  For  parties i t i s prospectiyely retrospective: mature  opportunity? refers  is  to  the  (or  beyond),  My  have  expression  question:  of  an  equal  prospective  I f I were them, would I,  when mature, c o n s i d e r i t t o have been an equal  133  had  opportunity?  BIBLIOGRAPHY Aiken, W i l l i a m and L a F o l l e t t e , Hugh (eds.). Totowa: Rowman & L i t t l e f i e l d .  1980. Whose C h i l d .  Barry, B r i a n . 1973. The L i b e r a l Theory of J u s t i c e . Clarendon P r e s s . B a i e r , K u r t . 1965. The Moral P o i n t o f View. Random House. Benn, S.I. and Weinstein, W.L. Being A Free Man". Mind.  Oxford:  New York:  1971. "Being Free t o A c t and 80:194-211.  Benn, S.I. 1976. "Freedom, Autonomy and the Concept of a Person". The A r i s t o t e l i a n S o c i e t y . 76:109-130. Case, Roland. 1982. The J u s t i f i c a t i o n o f Compulsory E d u c a t i o n . M.A. T h e s i s U.B.C. Cohen, Howard. 1980. Equal Rights f o r C h i l d r e n . Rowman & L i t t l e f i e l d . C u r t i s , M i c h a e l . 1982. The Great P o l i t i c a l New York: Avon. del  S o l a r , C h a r l o t t e . 1949. Parents and Teachers View C h i l d r e n . College Press.  Totowa:  Theories.  New York:  Teachers'  deMause, L l o y d . 1974. "The E v o l u t i o n o f Childhood". i n The H i s t o r y o f Childhood, (ed.) L l o y d deMause, pp. New York: Harper & Row.  1-73.  Donzelot, Jacques. 1979. The P o l i c i n g o f F a m i l i e s . (trans. Robert Hurley") New York: Pantheon Books. Dworkin, G e r a l d . Easton, David. A. Knopf.  1972.  "Paternalism".  1953. The P o l i t i c a l  The Monist.  System.  E l s h t a i n , Jean Bethke ( e d . ) . 1982. The Family and P o l i t i c a l Thought. Amherst: Massachusetts Press.  56:64-84.  New York:  U n i v e r s i t y of  Engels, F r e d e r i c k . 1972. The O r i g i n o f the Family, P r i v a t e Property, and the S t a t e . New York: P a t h f i n d e r Press. 4  Ennis, Robert H. 1976. E d u c a t i o n a l Theory. E r i k s o n , E r i k H. Triad.  " E q u a l i t y o f E d u c a t i o n a l Opportunity". 26:3-18.  1977. Childhood and S o c i e t y . 134  Granada:  Feinberg, J o e l . 1966. "Duties, Rights, and Claims". American P h i l o s o p h i c a l Q u a r t e r l y . 3:137-144. Feinberg, J o e l . 1971. "Legal P a t e r n a l i s m " . Canadian J o u r n a l o f Philosophy. 1:105-124. Feinberg, J o e l . 1973. Prentice-Hall.  S o c i a l Philosophy.  F i s h k i n , James S. 1983. J u s t i c e , Equal Opportunity, the Family. U n i v e r s i t y Press.  Englewood  Cliffs:  New Haven:  F r e i r e , Paulo. 1983. Pedagogy o f the Oppressed. Bergman Ramos) New York: Continuum.  Yale  ( t r a n s . Myra  Gutmann, Amy. 1980. " C h i l d r e n , P a t e r n a l i s m , and Education: A L i b e r a l Argument". Philosophy and P u b l i c A f f a i r s . 9:338-358. Hamlyn, D.W. London:  1978. Experience and the Growth o f Understanding. Routledge & Kegan P a u l .  Hare, R.M. 1965. Freedom and Reason. Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  London:  Hare, R.M. 1973. "Rawls'Theory of J u s t i c e - I & I I " P h i l o s o p h i c a l Q u a r t e r l y . 23:144-155 & 241-252. Hart, H.L.A. 1955. "Are There Any N a t u r a l R i g h t s " . The P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review. 64:175-191. Held, V i r g i n i a . 1970. The P u b l i c I n t e r e s t and I n d i v i d u a l I n t e r e s t . B a s i c Books.  New York:  Kaplan, Morton A. 1976. J u s t i c e , Human Nature and P o l i t i c a l O b l i g a t i o n . The Free Press.  New York:  K l e i n i g , John. 1976. " M i l l , C h i l d r e n , and R i g h t s " . E d u c a t i o n a l Philosophy and Theory. 8:1-16. Kratzmann, A r t h u r . 1976. The Increased P l u r a l i s m and P o l i t i c i z a t i o n o f P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n . Victoria: Faculty of Education. Laing, R.D. 1969. The P o l i t i c s o f the Family. Canadian Broadcasting C o r p o r a t i o n .  Toronto:  Lasch, C h r i s t o p h e r . York: B a s i c Books.  1977.  Locke,  In Masterworks o f Philosophy,  John.  1946.  Haven i n a H e a r t l e s s World.  135  New  (ed.)  S.E.  F r o s t , pp.  87-199.  New  York:  McGraw-Hill.  Locke, John. 1960. Two T r e a t i s e s of Government. (ed.) Peter L a s l e t t . Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press. Lyons, D a n i e l . 29:92-97.  1969.  "The  Odd  McMurtry, John. 1980a. "The Interchange. 10:10-28.  Debt of G r a t i t u d e " .  Case f o r C h i l d r e n ' s  M a r t i n , Rex. 1975. "Two Models f o r J u s t i f y i n g Authority". Ethics. 86:70-75.  Analysis. Liberation".  Political  M a r t i n , Rex and N i c k e l , James W. 1980. Recent Works on the Concept of R i g h t s " . American P h i l o s o p h i c a l Q u a r t e r l y . 17:165-180. Montague, P h i l l i p . Philosophy and  1980. "Two Concepts of R i g h t s " . Public A f f a i r s . 9:372-384.  Nagel, Thomas. 1973. "Rawls on J u s t i c e " . P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review. 82:220-234. Nozick, Robert. 1974. B a s i c Books.  Anarchy, S t a t e ,  and  Utopia.  New  York:  O ' N e i l l , Onora and Ruddick, W i l l i a m , (eds.). 1979. Having C h i l d r e n . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Parent, W.A. 1976. " L i b e r a l i s m and Personalist. 57:76-81. Paul,  J e f f r e y (ed.). 1981. Rowman & L i t t l e f i e l d .  the Concept of  Reading Nozick.  Liberty".  Totowa:  Queen, S t u a r t A. and Habenstein, Robert W. 1974. The Family i n V a r i o u s C u l t u r e s . Philadelphia:  Lippincott.  Rawls, John. 1955. "Two Concepts of Rules". P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review. 64:3-32. Rawls, John. 1958. " J u s t i c e as F a i r n e s s " . P h i l o s o p h i c a l Review. 68:3-28. Rawls, John. 1964. "Legal O b l i g a t i o n and the Duty of Play". In Law and Philosophy, (ed.) S. Hook, pp. New York: U n i v e r s i t y Press.  Fair 3-18.  Rawls, John. 1969. "The J u s t i f i c a t i o n of C i v i l Disobedience". In C i v i l Disobedience: Theory and P r a c t i c e , pp. 240-255. New York: Pegasus. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of J u s t i c e . Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . 136  Cambridge:  Richards, David A.J. 1973. "Equal Opportunity and School Financing". The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Law Review. 41:32-41. Rosenak, J u l i a . 1982. "Should C h i l d r e n be Subject to P a t e r n a l i s t i c R e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e i r L i b e r t i e s ? " J o u r n a l of Philosophy of Education. 16:89-96. Sampson, G e o f f r e y . 1978. " L i b e r a l i s m and Nozick's S t a t e ' " . Mind. 87:93-97.  'Minimal  Schrag, F r a n c i s . 19:193-208.  Inquiry.  1976.  " J u s t i c e and  the Family".  Schrag, F r a n c i s . 1973. "Rights Over C h i l d r e n " . The J o u r n a l of Value I n q u i r y . 7:96-105. Sidgwick, Henry. Macmillan.  1907.  The Methods o f E t h i c s .  London:  Simmons, A. John. 1979. Moral P r i n c i p l e s and P o l i t i c a l O b l i g a t i o n s . Princeton: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press. Snooks, Ivan and Lankshear, C o l i n . 1979. Education Victoria: Melbourne U n i v e r s i t y Press.  and  Sutherland, N e i l . 1976. C h i l d r e n i n English-Canadian Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press. Sutton, Thomas L. 1978. E d u c a t i o n a l Theory.  Rights.  Society.  "Human Rights and C h i l d r e n " . 28:102-110.  Task Force on the C h i l d as C i t i z e n . 1978. Admittance R e s t r i c t e d . Canadian C o u n c i l on C h i l d r e n Youth. Ten, Van  C.L.  1971.  "Paternalism and M o r a l i t y " .  Ratio.  and  13:56-66.  De Veer, Donald. 1979. "Paternalism and Subsequent Control". Canadian J o u r n a l of Philosophy. 9:631-642.  Vincent, A.W. and George, M i c h a e l . 1982. "Development S e l f - I d e n t i t y : Hegel's Concept of Education". E d u c a t i o n a l Theory. 32:131-141. Warnock, Mary. 1977. Faber & Faber. White, Burton L. 1975. Englewoods C l i f f s :  Schools  of Thought.  and  London:  The F i r s t Three Years of L i f e . Prentice-Hall.  White, John. 1981. "In Defence of S t a t e - C o n t r o l l e d C u r r i c u l a " . J o u r n a l o f Philosophy of Education. 15:255-260.  137  White, John. 1982. The Aims o f Education Restated. Routledge & Kegan P a u l . White, P a t r i c i a . 1983. Beyond Domination. Routledge & Kegan P a u l .  London:  London:  W i l l i a m s , Bernard. 1981 "The Minimal S t a t e " In Reading Nozick, J e f f r e y Paul (ed.). Totowa:Rowman & Littlefield. Worsfold, V i c t o r L. 1974. "A P h i l o s o p h i c a l J u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r Children's Rights". Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review. 44:142-157. Yorburg, B e t t y . 1983. F a m i l i e s and S o c i e t i e s . Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Press. Young, Robert. 1976. and A d o l e s c e n t s " . 8:17-31.  New York:  "Education and the 'Rights' of C h i l d r e n E d u c a t i o n a l Philosophy and Theory.  138  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0228301/manifest

Comment

Related Items