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.

[curmu-curmu]

OMG!  Abolish families?  I shudder to think of the alternatives!

Idiotic SJW's who have no real concept of family values, and spew forth absurd propositions, designed specifically to draw attention to themselves, and create awareness of their abilities.

Trouble is, they just look stupid..

[rabbitearbandicoot]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

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.

---

"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.

Now there's an example of what a University education can do for you - I wouldn't have worked that out with my limited education.

[curmu-curmu]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

Now there's an example of what a University education can do for you - I wouldn't have worked that out with my limited education.

---

Higher education at its finest?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

as my old grandfather used to say:

"If things don't alter .... they'll stay the same".

[gleee58]

Talk about missing the point.

It's the Philosopher's zone. Discussion of the intricaties of life is what they do.

Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state. Aristotle didn’t agree, citing the since oft-used argument of the neglect of things held in common. Swift echoes the Aristotelian line. The break-up of the family is plausible maybe, he thinks, but even to the most hard-hearted there’s something off-key about it.

‘Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong,’ he says.

Intuitively it doesn’t feel right, but for a philosopher, solutions require more than an initial reaction. So Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defence of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

[icyfroth]

---

@rabbitearbandicoot wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

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.

---

"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.

Now there's an example of what a University education can do for you - I wouldn't have worked that out with my limited education.

---

[bright.ton42]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

‘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.

That's outrageous!

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

---

What a load of horse radish.  Parents should feel guilty for reading Winnie the Pooh to their children at night?

For giving them love?   

I wonder if these two 'philosophers' were paid for their so-called research. 

Probably and with our money. 

[icyfroth]

---

@bright.ton42 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

‘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.

That's outrageous!

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

---

What a load of horse radish.  Parents should feel guilty for reading Winnie the Pooh to their children at night?

For giving them love?   

I wonder if these two 'philosophers' were paid for their so-called research. 

Probably and with our money. 

---

"I wonder if these two 'philosophers' were paid for their so-called research. 

Probably and with our money."

I think there's an agenda to "seed" the idea into the public's mind. Get people used to the idea. There are sure be  certain ppl who

who think it'd a great idea to pop out the kids, get a baby bonus and absolve themselves  of responsibility by having the state raise them. 

They'll be sold on the idea of true equality for all.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

what do philosphers do? I mean how do they earn a crust?