by Nathan Breck

Created on: June 24, 2009

When we think of moral judgments, we must differentiate from caretaking of children, and from safety judgments. No one disputes that parents should stop their children from hurling themselves in front of an oncoming bus. But that is, in the form that most parents view it, not a moral judgment, but a pragmatic judgment of safety. While an excellent sophist could turn it into a moral judgment, most parents are not thinking, "Because of the intrinsic goodness of life, it is morally wrong for me to remain idle while life is tossed aside." They think, "My CHILD!" This is not a moral judgment.

So we must define "moral judgment." What is it? There are many possibilities, but it seems two are most useful. Either a moral judgment is synonymous with a moral belief (my judgment regarding a certain behavior, which causes me to believe a certain thing) or it is an activity which is directly behavioral: a moral judgment would be the decision to not drink, or to have certain friends. The judgment is either the belief-forming agent or the action based in beliefs.

However, this question provides a hint as to which we must assess: it references the parents' beliefs. Hence, the moral judgment is separate from the beliefs, hence it is the activity, not the formation of believe. Thus, the question is, in a less ambiguous format: "Should parents decide the behavior of children based on their own beliefs?"

While for very small children the answer could certainly be "Yes!" we must discount that, as we are talking about the whole of childhood, up even to the high school years. Moreover, by questioning the parental role, we are implying the possibility of a legitimate self-sovereignty of a child: which is only reasonable with a more developed child. So we are talking, in fact, about middle and high school students, which is also exactly the age when "moral judgments" begin to be absolutely necessary to personal development. Peer pressure and an expanding social life bring new challenges to the moral psyche of a child. Should the response be primarily parentally determined, or primarily child-determined?

Our inherent protective instincts for children at first scream for parent-power. Kids need protection. However, if we move to a more sophisticated level of reasoning, we quickly realize that the primary behavioral force in a child/teenager's life must be themselves, if we desire them to develop well. They must make their own decisions. Parents should work to instill certain beliefs, which will guide a child's behavior: not instill certain behaviors. Leadership provides principles, tyranny demands habits. Leadership is undeniably superior.

A child who is never permitted to make their own decisions is being deprived of an essential right of passage, and being held back from their potential. Experience on a global scale has shown the effectiveness (and occasional excess requiring guidance) of free markets: and the principle of free markets is a fundamental organic principle of all life. An ecosystem allowed to develop on its own without interference will reach its point of maximum sustainable biotic potential. A market allowed to develop on its own without interference will achieve a similar goal. So will a child. Naturally, a child needs guidance, just as a market may, just as an ecosystem may when others interfere in it. But a child does not need a "decider" to rule over them: they need a pathfinder who has gone before them.

Learn more about this author, Nathan Breck.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.