Republican Children

Brooks, Thom

Abstract

Parents appear to dominate their children in ways they cannot with other adults.

A parent can exercise discretion in how their children are raised, but not over how other adults exercise their own discretion. While parental authority over children may seem unavoidable and widely accepted, the issue raises important questions about whether children are rendered unfree and what might normatively justify their different treatment from adults.

Children are regularly excluded from how theories of freedom are conceived and applied. Sometimes they are described as an “anomaly” that “defy the conventional view” explained by their lack of full autonomy. For example, when discussing the remit of his classically liberal theory of freedom, John Stuart Mill says: “It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine is meant to apply to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children … Those who are still in a state to require being taken care of by others, must be protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” Similarly, Isaiah Berlin observes that Spinoza claims “children, although there are coerced, are not slaves.” Children are unfree and they require parental authority to support their becoming autonomous when reaching adulthood. Until then, theories of freedom do not apply to them and children may be dominated by their parents.

Citation

Brooks, T. (online). Republican Children. Philosophy and Public Affairs, https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12278

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Nov 13, 2024
• Online Publication Date: Dec 4, 2024
• Deposit Date: Dec 11, 2024
• Publicly Available Date: Dec 11, 2024
• Journal: Philosophy & Public Affairs
• Print ISSN: 0048-3915
• Electronic ISSN: 1088-4963
• Publisher: Wiley
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12278
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/3211452