« Where's Flashman When His Country Needs Him? | Main | Friday Night is Music Night (English Love Song Edition) »

Rights vs Justice

I listened to this case yesterday as I was driving and I struggled to pinpoint what was wrong, Andrew Lilco points out what it is :

CentreRight: The wicked principle that "the welfare of the child is paramount"

...the central principle that the welfare of the children is paramount. It was very likely to be in the best interests of the children that they stay with their new adoptive parents. Yet this principle is obviously wicked - consciously so, for it sets aside even the aspiration of being just. The notion that these parents should be denied the raising of their children just because they would be better off being raised by someone else is horrific.
Australia used to take children from Aborigines so they could be raised in environments in which the children would do better. One could imagine taking away the children of British unemployed teenage single mothers to give them to wealthy childless couples. I don't doubt that by any objective measure of life outcomes - qualifications, lifetime earnings, likelihood of falling to crime or drugs, likelihood of divorce, whatever you like - I have no doubt that on any objective measure of the welfare of children the children taken from Aborigines would have done better, and the children taken from teenage single mothers to give to wealthy childless couples would do better. But we rightly think that this practice in Australia was wicked, and we would rightly think that taking the children of teenage mothers in this way would be wicked - provided only that the parents were competent to raise their children. Setting aside justice in order to take paramount concern for the welfare of children is unjust...

Comments

It all depends on how you define "welfare of the child".

If, as is usually the case, being brought up by its natural parents is at or near the top of the list, that factor trumps almost everything else. It has never been the case that children are removed from natural parents simply because the parents are poor or badly educated.

One should question the morality of the adoptive parents. If you had developed a strong bond with children you had adopted, believed you loved them and they loved you, if you knew that their parents were not guilty of what they had been accused of and dearly wanted their children back, would you choose to fight to keep those children? It seems to me that to do so would be entirely selfish and no decent person would do such a thing.

Of course, the real objective of this approach is to undermine natural family ties and replace them with a situation where children are the gift of the state with custody of them being bestowed or revoked as the state's representatives see fit.

The quoted passage gets right to the heart of the matter - It is unjust.

Many other seemingly "good" rules and policies that the progressives or the enemy class, call them what you will, have imposed upon us share these characteristics of being designed with the secret purpose of destroying a natural or organic institution and being fundamentally unjust.

The prudent rule of thumb is that if the enemy class is for something then start by considering the diametrically opposite position to see if a case can be made for it. In doing this, remember to distrust all statistics and other "facts" produced in support of the enemy class's position. Ask yourself whether the policy the enemy class is proposing is consistent with a minimal state; You will almost certainly find it isn't.

Post a comment