> If you do choose then you're the one who gives "them a false impression that something is up for negotiation when it is not".
I do not give false impressions because I tell my children when I am giving them an option or an explanation.
When they are young, you require certain behavior of them so that they can develop healthy habits. Things like "eat your vegetables", "wash your hands" or "don't take your younger siblings toys out of their hands" are mandatory because it is important for children to develop habits of health, hygiene, and pro-social behavior.
I may use positive as well as negative reinforcement, but you cannot expect such behavior out of small children purely through negotiation.
When they are older, you grant them more autonomy but require behavior of them as a consequence of the fact that they are your dependents. As a parent, I am both the owner of the house they live in and their legal guardian. That means that I have latitude to set restrictions on their behavior so long as they are a) residents in my house, and b) my legal wards.
When they are old enough, they are perfectly within their rights to seek emancipation. The goal, of course, is to set bounds that are both sufficiently liberal and sufficiently reasonable that the (older) child will have no desire to seek complete autonomy prior to the age of majority.
You are. By choosing when they get to choose, you're creating a cultural hegemony that they aren't conscious participants in.
Your goal as a parent shouldn't be to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. The only thing you gain by this is replicating society.
> you cannot expect such behavior out of small children purely through negotiation.
You misunderstand, I do not argue for negotiation because you shouldn't negotiate. You carry no stake in your child's future, in this sense they're only themselves. If they are only themselves, then there is nothing for you to negotiate about.
> and their legal guardian
Please understand that I do not care about the actuality of your legal status. My concern isn't in what is but in what ought. I am purely interested in your[0] limitation of their potentiality for "pure reason", as Kant would put it.
[0] I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you.
> You are. By choosing when they get to choose, you're creating a cultural hegemony that they aren't conscious participants in.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here.
> Your goal as a parent shouldn't be to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. The only thing you gain by this is replicating society.
What do you think should be my goal?
For my part, my goal is to socialize them into the norms, values, and beliefs that I hold. In part I do this for their benefit (so that they can be autonomous adults) and partly to shape future society. But perhaps most of all I share impart these values and beliefs because I value and believe them. No parent can help but to impart their values and beliefs. The only question is whether you do so consciously or not.
> You misunderstand, I do not argue for negotiation because you shouldn't negotiate. You carry no stake in your child's future, in this sense they're only themselves. If they are only themselves, then there is nothing for you to negotiate about.
Again, my apologies, but I really don't get what you are trying to convey. What does this have to do with compelling young children to eat their vegetables or restricting a teenager's access to lurid content on the internet? Perhaps you have different examples in mind?
> Please understand that I do not care about the actuality of your legal status. My concern isn't in what is but in what ought. I am purely interested in your[0] limitation of their potentiality for "pure reason", as Kant would put it.
I have a moral obligation to help mold the plastic elements of my child's psyche (much of which is admittedly not malleable) to serve their best interests and the interests of the society into which they will enter.
> I use and have used the word "your" rather carelessly. I don't mean you because I don't know you.
I do not give false impressions because I tell my children when I am giving them an option or an explanation.
When they are young, you require certain behavior of them so that they can develop healthy habits. Things like "eat your vegetables", "wash your hands" or "don't take your younger siblings toys out of their hands" are mandatory because it is important for children to develop habits of health, hygiene, and pro-social behavior.
I may use positive as well as negative reinforcement, but you cannot expect such behavior out of small children purely through negotiation.
When they are older, you grant them more autonomy but require behavior of them as a consequence of the fact that they are your dependents. As a parent, I am both the owner of the house they live in and their legal guardian. That means that I have latitude to set restrictions on their behavior so long as they are a) residents in my house, and b) my legal wards.
When they are old enough, they are perfectly within their rights to seek emancipation. The goal, of course, is to set bounds that are both sufficiently liberal and sufficiently reasonable that the (older) child will have no desire to seek complete autonomy prior to the age of majority.