Sample Blog Post:
In Locke's chapter on paternal power, he outlines how children are
essentially not free beings because they are born without reason and
therefore cannot be granted the same freedoms as reasonable beings.
Because of this children are to submit to the wills of their parents
until they are of age to "gain reason".
During this period of childhood, Locke says the parents have an
obligation to educate their children, protect them from society, and to
protect society from their children. In turn, children have a "perpetual
obligation of honoring their parents, which containing in it an inward
esteem and reverence to be shewn by all outward expressions, ties up the
child from anything that may ever injure or affront, disturb or
endanger the happiness or life of those from whom he received his...
from this obligation no state, no freedom can absolve children" (37).
Locke only exemplifies best-case scenario parents who love their
children dearly and "have a tenderness for their offspring". He said
that God's craftmanship of man leaves "little fear that parents should
use their power with too much rigor". While there are good parents in
the world, I think ignoring worst-case scenarios leaves a hole in his
argument.
What if parents do overextend their power or what if they neglect their
children? What if they don't even raise their kids at all? Is the act of
conceiving and birthing a child enough to warrant honor from that
child? Locke says that children are supposed to honor their parents with
esteem and reverence but what if those feelings are replaced with
hatred and disdain?
I'm not sure if he means to set up the parent and child relationship as
contractual or conditional. The contract being: once you're born, you
owe your parents honor-- regardless of what happens in between. The
conditional being: you owe your parents honor on the condition that they
raise you well. But because he says no state nor freedom can absolve
children from that obligation, it leads me to believe it's contractual.
I don't think that's fair because a child never asks to be born,
therefore being born shouldn't be the only condition in which a child
owes their parent honor. I think a healthy and substantial childhood
should be the condition in which a child should be obliged to honor
their parents.
Comments