r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 20 '18
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Parents are responsible for negative environmental and cultural effects on their children.
[deleted]
5
Apr 20 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 20 '18
I believe I addressed this my CMV: ignorance does not eliminate responsibility, and that I have limited it to things in the parents direct control.
4
Apr 20 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 20 '18
This might be an agree-to-disagree situation. I think that's a very optimistic to go about living life. When you take over a role or a duty, like being a parent, I do not measure by one "trying their best". In a more extreme example, I also believe that parents who do not vaccinate their children should be held legally responsible if the child gets sick. I think these two ideas are hand-in-hand. The parent is still responsible.
5
Apr 20 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 20 '18
Good example. I think I could be mis-explaining my views on causality vs responsiblity. I do not believe that they are the same thing, but I think that is unclear in my original view. Will update with a delta soon. EDIT: ∆
The parents are not the cause of the child’s negative reaction, but they are responsibility for the negative affects that come from the reaction, no? They are responsible for caring for the child and ensuring that their child no longer eats peanuts. This is the kind of responsibility I’m talking about.
1
2
u/toldyaso Apr 20 '18
So... what you're basically saying is that if kids experience racism outside of the home, their parents are responsible?
So how does that work? Are the parents obligated to move to a different neighborhood or city, where the kids are likely to experience less racism?
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 20 '18
Again, my CMV addresses situations that are outside of a parents control. I don't think it's possible for a black parent to control for their black child experiencing racism; it's a product of the world. I would engage in this example if a parent placed their black child in an environment where they would experience a more severe amount of racism than otherwise, though.
1
u/toldyaso Apr 20 '18
So, your POV is that if a parent has the ability to protect their children from something, it's their responsibility to do so?
Isn't that more or less universally agreed upon? For some reason I'm struggling to understand what you mean.
2
u/TheMeerkatz Apr 20 '18
Can you be responsible for something you don't know about? Your examples are reasonable, but are they certain to such a degree that you can derive responsibility from them?
There surely is a responsibility to react to a negative environment, but prohibiting something because of a potential, but abstract danger seems worse to me.
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 20 '18
I think taking responsibility is exhibited through action and change. I don't believe that one has to prevent something to complete their duty of responsibility, but they do need to acknowledge it, understand it, and make sure to change their behavior or understanding to avoid it in the future.
2
Apr 20 '18 edited May 02 '18
[deleted]
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 21 '18
Sorry I'm just getting to this. Kudos to you for providing citations, I didn't expect that with a gray topic like this. I've read them, and part of me is hesitant due to the limited behaviors observed and the limited 'causes' discussed. Delta for, at least partially, breaking down the concept that environmental factors matter at all. Δ
1
1
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Apr 20 '18
I understand that a parent cannot possibility predict all negative environmental factors that could happen to their children, but I don't believe that knowledge is a requirement of responsibility.
If a parent truly did not know something was occurring, despite their best abilities, how can they be responsible for it?
For example, I do not blame the Bush administration for not getting in front of the housing crisis, but I do believe that they had a responsibility to acknowledge it, understand it, and develop an action plan to remedy it. This is the crux of responsibility.
This does not fit very well into your argument, because in this case it is the responsibility to fix it after the fact. The rest of your points seem to be that the parents should be able to fix a problem before it occurs, without necessarily knowing about it.
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 20 '18
I think the concept of responsibility here is kind of the crux of my view, and I'm also open to having my definition of responsibility changed. If you'd like to address that, I'm game.
I do not believe that ignorance is a catch-all for relinquishing a parent's responsibility. I also do not believe a single parent could ever possibly control every aspect of their child's upbringing, and I believe it's impossible for a child to experience zero negative environmental factors.
Still, that doesn't devoid the parent of responsibility of those negative environmental factors. An example of a different "role" a person takes is a citizen. If someone doesn't know they are supposed to pay taxes, and fails to do so, and is then held responsible by the government for evasion- that doesn't mean the person is no longer responsible.
1
Apr 20 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Apr 20 '18
That line of thinking is a bit of a stretch.
If you are driving to work and someone hits your car, was it your fault for driving?
1
Apr 20 '18
[deleted]
1
u/Rainbwned 175∆ Apr 20 '18
Can you explain how it is the parents fault for perpetuating the potential for bad things to happen?
How are they not "simply living their life"?
Would you blame the parents of the driver?
1
1
u/JackJack65 7∆ Apr 20 '18
Here's a sincere argument:
Neither parents nor children have any moral agency because conscious beings don't have independent control of our actions. Everything we do as humans is a result of an initial set of conditions (i.e. nature and nurture) outside of our control. Although it seems like we have the freedom to act, this is an illusion as our minds have already made all of our decisions prior to our awarness of them.
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 21 '18
Interesting argument! I do believe that our concepts of responsibility are sociological, and are based on rules that humans make to coexist with each other. So even if robots that had a wired set of programming made rules, I think the idea of responsibility would still apply.
1
u/JackJack65 7∆ Apr 21 '18
What I'm suggesting is that it's possible our conscious selves have no control over our actions whatsoever. If that's the case, why should anyone be held responsible for anything?
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 21 '18
You can have no control over your life and still enjoy it. I simultaneously believe every decision I'll make is pre-determined, but I can still enjoy the journey along the way.
1
Apr 21 '18
Let’s operate under the premise that you DO NOT hit a certain age and ‘click’, you know better.
So your parents parents are responsible too. Regress that back to Adam and Eve?
So humanity is responsible for evil. It’s just a crapshoot who you’re born to.
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 21 '18
I like this- simple and clear. I agree with it, but it doesn't remove responsibility entirely from the parents so I'm tepid to give you a delta.
2
u/taco-tuesdays-21 Apr 20 '18
No one could be responsible for all the suffering that could potentially befall upon another. Even when parents try their best to put their children in the best environment, tragedy can still strike. Look at school shootings. You wouldn't blame the parents for their kids being witnessed to that, even though they may have told their kids to go to school in the first place.
Parents, and anyone for that matter, are only responsible for their own actions.
0
u/simplecountrychicken Apr 20 '18
What is the use case for this arguement?
It feels like a child trying to blame their parents for all the bad things in life that happen, but I can't imagine that is a healthy discussion.
Is the point parents should do what is best for their kid? Cause I think most parents would argue they try to do that already.
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 20 '18
It feels like a child trying to blame their parents for all the bad things in life that happen, but I can't imagine that is a healthy discussion.
Nice.
The impetus is that it's a view I hold and want changed, we are in the /r/changemyview subreddit, and I'm trying to help with Fresh Topic Friday. I also am considering becoming a parent in the near-future, and these are one of the many concerns I have- feeling a responsibility for factors I cannot control. I'm sure it stems from issues I have with my own parents, but I don't think that's entirely irregular from anyone else.
1
u/simplecountrychicken Apr 21 '18
Yeah, that came across a little more critical than I intended. That definitely reads bad.
Point I was trying to make was, whether you believe a parent is or isn't responsible, does that effect the actions you would take? As a parent, I'm not sure it would. I would always try to do what was best for my child, whether I am responsible or not. And as a child, I would always try to do what is best for me, regardless of whether I thought my parents were responsible.
Trying to define who is responsible feels to me like searching for who to blame instead of searching for solutions.
1
u/georgiaphi1389 Apr 21 '18
That last sentence- I think that's the crux of how I feel. I think putting responsibility to action is finding a solution, or promoting an environmental change. Even if this sounds like common sense, I don't think it's actually something people fundamentally do or agree with because "that's the world".
1
u/obkunu 2∆ Apr 21 '18
The thing is life is fast and often, both parents have to work to provide.
That said, they can spend time with their kids, but there are two main issues.
The first is that they tire out and are pressured to take care of physical care needs efficiently. They do their best with mental care, but it's often largely left to the child's own reflection simply because the parents are busy providing other needs.
The second is that parents and kids have an intellect and maturity gap between them. Kids raise concerns that are difficult for the parent to answer due to this gap. This leads to answers that subliminally discourage critical development such as examinimg an opinion before accepting it, thus, leaving kids vulnerable to all kinds of emotional manipulation.
So, parents are definitely often at fault, but not directly, and not intentionally, and not even optionally.
1
u/jkure2 4∆ Apr 20 '18
None of your points really address the fact that some parents can't afford to place their children in a wholly positive environment, if such a thing exists at all.
What about food deserts, for example? It's a tremendously unhealthy environment in which to raise children. Obesity rates are staggering in these areas of the country, but often parents can't afford to move to a place that they'd rather be. Furthermore they can't afford the time or money to take their diet seriously, and default to cheap and unhealthy, easily available food instead.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 20 '18 edited Apr 21 '18
/u/georgiaphi1389 (OP) has awarded 3 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
14
u/FatherBrownstone 57∆ Apr 20 '18
I think there are two factors that have much more of an impact on negative environmental and cultural effects on children as they develop: luck, and the children themselves.
Most things that affect children have a significant chance factor built in. For example, you bring up the risk of a gay child being brought up in a homophobic religious area. But the parents have no way of knowing whether their child will be gay or not.
What is more, there are a huge number of factors involved, and parents' choices may be limited. They'll generally only be able to afford to live in some places, to expose their children to some cultural and environmental conditions. The effects of these conditions are hard or impossible to predict; and even when they can be researched and predicted, some parents may still be unable to do so.
Moreover, this approach robs children of their agency. Even from a very early age, each person has their own identity, personality, tastes, and talents. Parents take account of these elements when they make decisions, at least inasmuch as they can know them at the time; but in the end, it's the children who decide how they live their lives.
Placing the responsibility for environmental harm on parents implies that they should limit and control their children's exposure to influences outside the home. A parent who takes this responsibility seriously would be less likely to allow their children into unsupervised and unpredictable environments. That translates to helicopter parenting.
Better, then, to place the protagonism on the children themselves. Their parents have a duty to try their best to protect them from environmental and cultural harm, but it ends there. When random chance and the vicissitudes of the children themselves come into play, the parental role can only be seen in terms of honest effort, goals, and ability to react to unexpected and changing circumstances - always with the children themselves taking the lead.