Create Equality - Abolish The Family

[icyfroth]

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.

‘We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families—and that our theory defends—will confer unfair advantage,’ he says.

Although it’s controversial, it seems that Swift and Brighouse are philosophically inching their way to a novel accommodation for a weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing. The bathwater might be going out, but they’re keen to hold on to the baby.

Entire Article Here

So families should stop providing loving and nurturing environment in order not to disadvantage kid who aren't in a loving family relationship? So there's a level playing field for all children to grow up as equals?

Better still, take children away from their families and raise them in institutions to ensure a level playing field?

That's outrageous!

Trust the ABC to sprout such rubbish. They should be shut down and Swift and Brighouse should be the ones institutionalised.

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

So how do we level the playing field?

Why, take the raising of children from the parents all together. Give the over to State institutions to raise, that way everyone would be taught the same and think the same.

You and I might find that abhorrent, but I reckon it's got plenty of ppl thinking it might just be a good thing

And there, in a nutshell you have exactly what the article is challenging us to think about. This idea is not a new one. It was the policy behind  the "stolen generation"  It was also the policy behimd a similar scheme in Canada wherebye  first Nation children were required to attend residential schools for ten months a year. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2002/2.html

 I bet all those who  thought  up both those schemes were convinced it was a good idea at the time and I suspect there are  quite a few people even today who see it as a solution (but only if it appies to "other people's" kids, of course.)

What the ABC has done in publishing this article is invite us to consider and challenge this seemingly logical  proposal. Do we agree with it? If so what benefits do we think it would bring? should it be universal or should it only apply to disadvantaged children?

  Do we find it abhorrant - as the author of the article  implied he does. If we do  find it abhorrant, what do we find distasteful about it? Why do we think it might be counter productive? What arguments would we put forward to support our views? 

The article is not offering an opinion, it is putting forward an unemotional ,purely logical proposal and inviting us to examine our reaction to it

---

Well thank you, She-el. You've just repeated what I've said in roughly twice as many words.

[icyfroth]

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@alexander*beetle wrote:

I wasn't commenting on the philosphy per se. More about the fact that the article had been taken out of context and just jumped on for a few points. Without the headline it wasn't a true representation of what the article was about either. Just saying is all. 

---

I'd like to know how you think including the introduction would have affected the context of the post.

To C&P the whole article would have made the post too bulky, hence I picked out what I thought were the salient points and included the link for those who wanted to read more.

What view do you think would have changed if I'd included the introduction?

---

By including the introduction, which was a question, it gives context to the answer. By only showing the answer, it looks like a statement and not someone's thoughts. 

By you picking out what you thought were salient points are exactly that. Your thoughts. And I mean no offence by that but your thoughts are just that, yours. Mine may well be completely different. Adn without the whole thing being shown it does make a difference. I understand that you were trying to minimise the amount posted to save space but it does make a difference to the way it comes across. 

I had read the article a day or so previously and so was surprised at how it was being perceived here when I had read it in a completely different way. 

---

All that means is that you and I perceived the article in different ways, and not that I misrepresented the article by leaving off the introduction, as you implied.

[alexander*beetle]

No I still stand that the article was misrepesented. We may have perceived the article differently but by only posting part of it with your interpretation it was still deliberately your take on it and not the true meaning of the article. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

So how do we level the playing field?

Why, take the raising of children from the parents all together. Give the over to State institutions to raise, that way everyone would be taught the same and think the same.

You and I might find that abhorrent, but I reckon it's got plenty of ppl thinking it might just be a good thing

And there, in a nutshell you have exactly what the article is challenging us to think about. This idea is not a new one. It was the policy behind  the "stolen generation"  It was also the policy behimd a similar scheme in Canada wherebye  first Nation children were required to attend residential schools for ten months a year. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2002/2.html

 I bet all those who  thought  up both those schemes were convinced it was a good idea at the time and I suspect there are  quite a few people even today who see it as a solution (but only if it appies to "other people's" kids, of course.)

What the ABC has done in publishing this article is invite us to consider and challenge this seemingly logical  proposal. Do we agree with it? If so what benefits do we think it would bring? should it be universal or should it only apply to disadvantaged children?

  Do we find it abhorrant - as the author of the article  implied he does. If we do  find it abhorrant, what do we find distasteful about it? Why do we think it might be counter productive? What arguments would we put forward to support our views? 

The article is not offering an opinion, it is putting forward an unemotional ,purely logical proposal and inviting us to examine our reaction to it

---

Well thank you, She-el. You've just repeated what I've said in roughly twice as many words.

---

If that was, indeed, what you set out to say, then why did you conclude your OP by saing:  "Trust the ABC to sprout such rubbish. They should be shut down and Swift and Brighouse should be the ones institutionalised"? 

[gleee58]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

All that means is that you and I perceived the article in different ways, and not that I misrepresented the article by leaving off the introduction, as you implied.

---

Actually, the discussion was about a question.  To post it here with the statement in the title is a misrepresentation of the entire context and the dig at the ABC suggests it was purposefully misrepresented to justify the attack on the ABC.

Did you hear about it via Alan Jones?

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

So how do we level the playing field?

Why, take the raising of children from the parents all together. Give the over to State institutions to raise, that way everyone would be taught the same and think the same.

You and I might find that abhorrent, but I reckon it's got plenty of ppl thinking it might just be a good thing

And there, in a nutshell you have exactly what the article is challenging us to think about. This idea is not a new one. It was the policy behind  the "stolen generation"  It was also the policy behimd a similar scheme in Canada wherebye  first Nation children were required to attend residential schools for ten months a year. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2002/2.html

 I bet all those who  thought  up both those schemes were convinced it was a good idea at the time and I suspect there are  quite a few people even today who see it as a solution (but only if it appies to "other people's" kids, of course.)

What the ABC has done in publishing this article is invite us to consider and challenge this seemingly logical  proposal. Do we agree with it? If so what benefits do we think it would bring? should it be universal or should it only apply to disadvantaged children?

  Do we find it abhorrant - as the author of the article  implied he does. If we do  find it abhorrant, what do we find distasteful about it? Why do we think it might be counter productive? What arguments would we put forward to support our views? 

The article is not offering an opinion, it is putting forward an unemotional ,purely logical proposal and inviting us to examine our reaction to it

---

Well thank you, She-el. You've just repeated what I've said in roughly twice as many words.

---

If that was, indeed, what you set out to say, then why did you conclude your OP by saing:  "Trust the ABC to sprout such rubbish. They should be shut down and Swift and Brighouse should be the ones institutionalised"? 

---

Because it starts the process of idealistic (as against realistic) ppl thinking hey yes that's a great idea, the solution to world peace is take the kids off their parents and let the state raise them! That way everyone has an equal chance!

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted and a little manure from the likes of Swift and Brighouse to make it grow.

A couple of generations later you have a totally thought-controlled and state-dependant population.

It's not a new idea either, as you probably well know.

[gleee58]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

So how do we level the playing field?

Why, take the raising of children from the parents all together. Give the over to State institutions to raise, that way everyone would be taught the same and think the same.

You and I might find that abhorrent, but I reckon it's got plenty of ppl thinking it might just be a good thing

And there, in a nutshell you have exactly what the article is challenging us to think about. This idea is not a new one. It was the policy behind  the "stolen generation"  It was also the policy behimd a similar scheme in Canada wherebye  first Nation children were required to attend residential schools for ten months a year. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2002/2.html

 I bet all those who  thought  up both those schemes were convinced it was a good idea at the time and I suspect there are  quite a few people even today who see it as a solution (but only if it appies to "other people's" kids, of course.)

What the ABC has done in publishing this article is invite us to consider and challenge this seemingly logical  proposal. Do we agree with it? If so what benefits do we think it would bring? should it be universal or should it only apply to disadvantaged children?

  Do we find it abhorrant - as the author of the article  implied he does. If we do  find it abhorrant, what do we find distasteful about it? Why do we think it might be counter productive? What arguments would we put forward to support our views? 

The article is not offering an opinion, it is putting forward an unemotional ,purely logical proposal and inviting us to examine our reaction to it

---

Well thank you, She-el. You've just repeated what I've said in roughly twice as many words.

---

If that was, indeed, what you set out to say, then why did you conclude your OP by saing:  "Trust the ABC to sprout such rubbish. They should be shut down and Swift and Brighouse should be the ones institutionalised"? 

---

Because it starts the process of idealistic (as against realistic) ppl thinking hey yes that's a great idea, the solution to world peace is take the kids off their parents and let the state raise them! That way everyone has an equal chance!

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted and a little manure from the likes of Swift and Brighouse to make it grow.

A couple of generations later you have a totally thought-controlled and state-dependant population.

It's not a new idea either, as you probably well know.

---

If that's all it takes why has it not taken off in the years since it was discussed?

Your answer contradicts itself.  

Because it starts the process 

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted

It's not a new idea either

[icyfroth]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

So how do we level the playing field?

Why, take the raising of children from the parents all together. Give the over to State institutions to raise, that way everyone would be taught the same and think the same.

You and I might find that abhorrent, but I reckon it's got plenty of ppl thinking it might just be a good thing

And there, in a nutshell you have exactly what the article is challenging us to think about. This idea is not a new one. It was the policy behind  the "stolen generation"  It was also the policy behimd a similar scheme in Canada wherebye  first Nation children were required to attend residential schools for ten months a year. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2002/2.html

 I bet all those who  thought  up both those schemes were convinced it was a good idea at the time and I suspect there are  quite a few people even today who see it as a solution (but only if it appies to "other people's" kids, of course.)

What the ABC has done in publishing this article is invite us to consider and challenge this seemingly logical  proposal. Do we agree with it? If so what benefits do we think it would bring? should it be universal or should it only apply to disadvantaged children?

  Do we find it abhorrant - as the author of the article  implied he does. If we do  find it abhorrant, what do we find distasteful about it? Why do we think it might be counter productive? What arguments would we put forward to support our views? 

The article is not offering an opinion, it is putting forward an unemotional ,purely logical proposal and inviting us to examine our reaction to it

---

Well thank you, She-el. You've just repeated what I've said in roughly twice as many words.

---

If that was, indeed, what you set out to say, then why did you conclude your OP by saing:  "Trust the ABC to sprout such rubbish. They should be shut down and Swift and Brighouse should be the ones institutionalised"? 

---

Because it starts the process of idealistic (as against realistic) ppl thinking hey yes that's a great idea, the solution to world peace is take the kids off their parents and let the state raise them! That way everyone has an equal chance!

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted and a little manure from the likes of Swift and Brighouse to make it grow.

A couple of generations later you have a totally thought-controlled and state-dependant population.

It's not a new idea either, as you probably well know.

---

If that's all it takes why has it not taken off in the years since it was discussed?

Your answer contradicts itself.  

Because it starts the process 

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted

It's not a new idea either

---

It's a bit like the foreign mining industry gobbling up australian farmland.

Tell it no, it keeps coming back with a new proposal.

Until it's finally accepted.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

Because it starts the process of idealistic (as against realistic) ppl thinking hey yes that's a great idea, the solution to world peace is take the kids off their parents and let the state raise them! That way everyone has an equal chance!

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted and a little manure from the likes of Swift and Brighouse to make it grow.

A couple of generations later you have a totally thought-controlled and state-dependant population.

It's not a new idea either, as you probably well know.

---

This is laughable.

Did you honestly see all of that in that article icy??

Swift and partner were actually saying the complete opposite of what you are accusing them of. The absolute OPPOSITE.

I'm staggered that what you are reading into this can be so far off the mark. And then to go pointing further fingers of blame at the ABC is just bonkers.

[icyfroth]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

Because it starts the process of idealistic (as against realistic) ppl thinking hey yes that's a great idea, the solution to world peace is take the kids off their parents and let the state raise them! That way everyone has an equal chance!

All it takes is that little seed that The ABC planted and a little manure from the likes of Swift and Brighouse to make it grow.

A couple of generations later you have a totally thought-controlled and state-dependant population.

It's not a new idea either, as you probably well know.

---

This is laughable.

Did you honestly see all of that in that article icy??

Swift and partner were actually saying the complete opposite of what you are accusing them of. The absolute OPPOSITE.

I'm staggered that what you are reading into this can be so far off the mark. And then to go pointing further fingers of blame at the ABC is just bonkers.

---

Actually that's EXACTLY what they were saying in an opaque kind of roundabout way, and the ABC supported it and furthered it.