Abstract
Abstract Many people move house at some point during their childhood and not rarely more than once. While relocations are not always harmful for under-aged children, they can, and frequently do, cause great disruption to their lives by severing their social ties as well as any attachments that they might have to their neighbourhood, town, or wider geographical region, with long-lasting psychological effects in some cases. Since it is increasingly recognised within normative philosophy as well as within Western societies that older minors should have the final say over certain issues that significantly affect their lives (think, for instance, of custody disputes, decisions about whether to get specific vaccinations or use contraceptives), this raises the question: Can it be morally incumbent upon parents to give their minor children a veto over family relocation? This article argues that the answer is affirmative. Specifically, it suggests that such duties exist if and only if (i) parents are not morally required to either relocate their families or stay put, (ii) the stakes of the decision about a family relocation are fairly low, and (iii) the children have the competence to make these decisions, as many older minors do.
Highlights
A significant proportion of people relocate during their childhood and not rarely more than once
While relocations are not always harmful for under-aged children, they can, and frequently do, cause great disruption to their lives by severing their social ties as well as any attachments that they might have to their neighbourhood, town, or wider geographical region, with long-lasting psychological effects in some cases
Since it is increasingly recognised within normative philosophy as well as within Western societies that older minors should have the final say over certain issues that significantly affect their lives, this raises the question: Can it be morally incumbent upon parents to give their minor children a veto over family relocation? This article argues that the answer is affirmative
Summary
A significant proportion of people relocate during their childhood and not rarely more than once. B. de Vries their lives by severing their social ties as well as any attachments that they might have to their neighbourhood, town, or wider geographical region, with potentially long-lasting psychological effects Since it is increasingly recognized in normative philosophy as well as in Western societies that older minors should have the final say over certain issues that significantly affect their lives (think, for instance, of custody disputes and decisions about whether to get specific vaccinations or use contraceptives), the fact that relocating is often costly for children raises the question: Can it be morally incumbent upon parents to give their minor children a veto over family relocation and, if so, when? They might argue that a system that imposed such penalties would unduly interfere with the privacy of parents and children alike as excessive information about their personal lives would need to be gathered in order to determine whether any given parent or parental couple had wrongfully denied their children a veto.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
