Professors Adam Swift (University of Warwick) and Harry Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison) are working together on developing a “liberal egalitarian theory of the family.” Swift, the ABC article notes, “has been conflicted for some time” about how the “playing field” becomes lopsided — because some parents do more for their chil…
Professors Adam Swift (University of Warwick) and Harry Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison) are working together on developing a “liberal egalitarian theory of the family.” Swift, the ABC article notes, “has been conflicted for some time” about how the “playing field” becomes lopsided — because some parents do more for their children than others.
‘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.’
Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.
So, what to do?
According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.
‘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.’
Although Swift invokes Plato and his advocacy of the abolition of family, he and Brighouse recognize that they can’t go that far.
Instead, they “sort[ed] out those activities that contribute to unnecessary inequality from those that don’t.” Like, for example, private schooling:
‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’
In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.
“We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships,” Swift says, but doing away with reading to your kids would be “too big a hit at the core of family life.”
Boy, I guess we should all feel … lucky that Swift still allows us that “luxury?”
It is the goal of Marxists. The destruction of the family. We are in the midst of a cultural revolution. Exactly the way it was played out in Mao’s 1950-60s China.
notice that the article says: "he and Brighouse recognize that they can’t go that far." not that they SHOULDN'T go that far because it would be stupid and harmful and make the successful rearing of future generations completely impossible. but only that they CAN'T go that far, probably because parents love their children and would object to merely being used as incubators and then giving them up to the state to be raised as automatons in a factory or prison like setting.
but if you just changed some laws so that they COULD, well then....
Professors Adam Swift (University of Warwick) and Harry Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison) are working together on developing a “liberal egalitarian theory of the family.” Swift, the ABC article notes, “has been conflicted for some time” about how the “playing field” becomes lopsided — because some parents do more for their children than others.
‘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.’
Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.
So, what to do?
According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.
‘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.’
Although Swift invokes Plato and his advocacy of the abolition of family, he and Brighouse recognize that they can’t go that far.
Instead, they “sort[ed] out those activities that contribute to unnecessary inequality from those that don’t.” Like, for example, private schooling:
‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’
In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.
“We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships,” Swift says, but doing away with reading to your kids would be “too big a hit at the core of family life.”
Boy, I guess we should all feel … lucky that Swift still allows us that “luxury?”
do you understand this madness?
This twisted worldview is disturbingly unnatural, intentionally destructive and dehumanizing, and entirely infuriating. It's the goal of "equity."
you have hit the nail on the head.
It is the goal of Marxists. The destruction of the family. We are in the midst of a cultural revolution. Exactly the way it was played out in Mao’s 1950-60s China.
Perfectly expressed Kathleen
notice that the article says: "he and Brighouse recognize that they can’t go that far." not that they SHOULDN'T go that far because it would be stupid and harmful and make the successful rearing of future generations completely impossible. but only that they CAN'T go that far, probably because parents love their children and would object to merely being used as incubators and then giving them up to the state to be raised as automatons in a factory or prison like setting.
but if you just changed some laws so that they COULD, well then....