Você está na página 1de 3

Charissa Mae D.

Perlado

BSMT 2-1

PHILOSOPHY

1.) How did Hugh Lafollette argue for Licensing Parents?


Hugh Lafollette said that like any other potentially harmful activities that are
being regulated, parenting should also be regulated and first they should have a license
before rearing up a child. He said that parenting is an activity that is potentially very
harmful to children, based on studies; therefore parenting must be subject to regulation.
Moreover, according to Lafollette, parents have to be very competent to avoid hurting or
ignoring their children. However, many people lack the knowledge needed for taking care
of the children adequately. Thus, all parents should be licensed first.
2.) What are the objections and arguments against licensing parents?
The objections and arguments are as follows:
They have a right to have children, just as they have rights to free speech and free
religious expression. Any attempt to license parents would be unjust. However, even
though they have a right to have children, that right might be limited in order to protect
innocent people, in this case children. Some people hold unacceptable views about what
is best for children, they do not automatically have rights to rear children just because
they will rear them in a way they deem appropriate. A person has a right to rear children
if he meets certain minimal standards of child rearing and if he is not going to abuse or
neglect them.
There may not be or we may not be able to discover adequate criteria of a good
parent. According to Lafollette, they cannot formulate such criteria that would
distinguish precisely between good and less than good parents, but, his proposal does not
demand to make these distinctions, rather it is designed to exclude only the very bad
ones-those who will abuse or neglect their children. They have reliable and usable criteria
for determining who is a bad parent.

There is no reliable way to predict who will maltreat their children. Without an
accurate predictive test, licensing could not be unjust, but also a waste of time. In spite of
that, Lafollettes proposal does not require to make fine-line distinctions between good
and less than good parents, but somewhat weed out only those who are potentially very
bad. They can use existing tests that claim predictive characteristics whether a person is
violence-prone, easily frustrated, or unduly self-centered.
Administrators would unintentionally misuse that test. These unintentional
mistakes would clearly harm innocent individuals. No matter how reliable our
proceedings are, there will always be mistakes. These mistakes should not lead us to
abandon attempts to determine competence.
Any testing procedure will be intentionally abused. There is no reason to believe
that the licensing of parents is more likely to be abused than any other regulatory
procedures. Since licensing test can be taken many times, working with different
administrative personnel decreases the intentional abuse for a qualified person from
rearing children.
We could never adequately and fairly enforce such a program. Even if they are
presently uncertain about the precise way to establish a just and effective form of
enforcement, Lafollettes licensing proposal should not be undermine. If it is important to
protect children from being maltreated by parents, then surely a reasonable enforcement
procedure can be secured.
3.) What is your stand? Do you agree with Lafollette? Why or Why not?
No, I do not agree with Lafollette. It is every individuals right to have children. If
the licensing program is establish, its like violating their human rights to have children.
We are in a democratic country; we are free to do whatever we want, to speak what we
want, and to have children whenever we want to. However, it is our duty to be
responsible in all that we do. We are the one to be blame in all the actions that we make.
Because of that, people are highly accountable for their children. They have rights to do
what is best for their children, and they have certain privileges on how to discipline them.
When it comes to the point theyre abusing their children, the government has a right to

intervene. They can get the child from the parents and be put up for adoption or in a
foster home until the parent is responsible enough for his/her actions.
On the other hand, Lafollette is right. If the licensing program is really
established, we can prevent cases of abused children in every family. Still, even though
there are ways to determine who is most likely to abuse their children, it is not the way to
avoid it. Why? Because what if the licensed parent is the one who brings harm to his
child. We cannot be really sure if theyre a good or bad parent. And what will happen to a
child after removing the license of the parent? Will the child be put up for adoption? Or
will he/she be in the custody of the government? What if the child doesnt like any of it,
what would become of them?
Licensing parents is not a way to solve the problems of abusing or neglecting
children. Youre just monitoring parents who you can predict will abuse their children.
What if your prediction is wrong and not accurate? There are still various ways to protect
children from harm. Licensing program is not the solution. You just take away the rights
of a parent to have a child whenever they want to. On the end, every individual have their
own minds to be able to make their own decisions. Theyre mature enough to handle that
kind of responsibility for raising their children.

Você também pode gostar