As we discussed in class there does seem to be, as identified by Okin, a conflict between the freedom of religion and the equality of genders. If we were to accept the fundamentalist sexism as child abuse, the state would be forced, morally, to intervene. Rawls' toleration goes slightly too far.
What I find fascinating is the possibility of considering dogmatic insistence on poorly formed epistemologies as potentially damaging psychological phenomena. I am tempted to think that it is. If we were to accept this, then the state would be forced to intervene in the teaching of religions, at least those that preach the existence of a god.
Is it too far fetched to consider the inculcation of children into religions sects child abuse?
That's a stretch in the current political climate, but I would certainly like the state to reassert its Jeffersonian duty to insist that everyone learn to think critically. If we did that well, perhaps the problem of abusive epistemololgies would fade away.
ReplyDeleteIf we take the route of saying that one dogma is child abuse, than the patriotic and often edited, censored, and purposely crafted mecahnism of American history and public education too could be harmful. Would it not be abusive to teach a child a historical narrative with very few prominent female characters (i.e that they are not signifigant to the narrative)? Would it not be exteremely dangerous to indoctrinate a generation of children with the ethnocentric notion that America is that "last best hope for the world" the cliche "lone symbol of freedom"?
ReplyDeleteSo the argument looks like this: Lying is caeteris paribus wrong, and to be raised on a lie by those who know it is a lie is to be deprived of what we might call an epistemic right. We can show that such a right is robustly foundational, like life and liberty, since the implications for the development of autonomy of being thus lied to in childhood are devastating, so it looks like it would be a just state's obligation to protect it -- and hence to protect children against their parents' comprehensive worldviews, to the extent that those worldviews are demonstrably false or unjust. Corey's corollary is that such schools may not be jingoist pep rallies.
ReplyDeleteAs I hinted above, perhaps the best way for a just state to do this (since justice also demands the minimum possible intervention in private life) is to have compulsory schooling in which understanding and tolerance for differing views, a systematic and comprehensive study of history, and critical thinking are central to the curriculum.
Though perhaps too idealistic to be practical, I find myself aligned with exactly what you are saying. To be raised on a comprehensive worldview that is demonstrably false would constitute a denial of rights to the child. I agree with both of you immensely, and I think Matt's solution may the best option: to have compulsory education in which critical thinking is actually taught and toleration is central to the curriculum, with a strong emphasis placed on the former. We should not make the same mistake that Rawls makes which is taking his own fallibility and toleration slightly too far.
ReplyDelete