Suchergebnisse

THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT SEVERAL THEORIES, INCLUDING CONSENT THEORIES OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION, RUN INTO DIFFICULTIES WHEN THE PLACE OF CHILDREN IS CONSIDERED. UNDER THE CONSENT APPROACH ONE WOULD CONCLUDE, CONTRARY TO COMMON ASSUMPTION, THAT THOSE WHO HAVE NOT YET ATTAINED SUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING TO BE CONSIDERED AS CONSENTING ARE NOT MORALLY OBLIGED TO OBEY THE STATE'S LAWS.

Consideration of the status and treatment of the child is a legitimate concern of political theory, and may lead to reappraisal of some commonly deployed arguments. Several respects are indicated in which decisions taken by adults and affecting children may properly be considered political. More specifically, it is argued that (i) anarchist theory; (ii) Nozick's arguments in Anarchy, State and Utopia; and (iii) consent theories of political obligation run into difficulties when the place of children is considered. The argument points, under (i) and (ii), to putative lines of justification of the state; and under (iii) to the conclusion, contrary to common assumption, that those who have not yet attained sufficient understanding to be considered as consenting are not morally obliged to obey the state's laws and agents.

Educational Equality and the New Selective Schooling by Harry Brighouse was initially published by the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain in 2000. In this new edition, Brighouse has updated his argument, Kenneth R Howe and James Tooley have contributed counter-arguments and Graham Haydon has provided an introduction and afterword drawing the debates together. The issues debated in this new edition of Educational Equality include:. What is Educational Equality?. Why Does Educational Equality Matter?. Is Educational Equality Possible?. Educational Equality raises issues which