In ‘Licensing Parents’, Hugh LaFollette argues for parents to be licensed before being granted children. LaFollette’s argument can be outlined in the form of modus ponens that is:
P1. Some activities need to be regulated as they cause harm.
P2. Parenting can cause harm.
C. Therefore, parenting is an activity that needs to be regulated.
LaFollette introduces the argument by proposing instances where regulation is a necessary condition to prevent potential harm arising, from what is referred to as harmful activities. Such activities include the distribution of medicine, providing legal advice and driving a car. LaFollette (1980, P.184) accepts that whilst denying an individual a license can cause inconvenience, it is necessary for innocent people to be protected. To explain this clearer, LaFollette is considering a trade off between an individual’s dreams and an individual’s protection; however, individual protection is of more importance. For an activity to be regulated, LaFollette proposes a criterion, consisting of two necessary conditions:
(A) The act itself is a potentially harmful activity.
(B) A level of competence is required.
Using this, he infers that licensing can be applied to parents, …show more content…
The fundamental theoretical objection is that some people believe they have a right to a child. This objection follows as, similar to the right of freedom of speech, a person holds a natural right to have children; hence it is illegitimate to license such a right. In response, LaFollette uses the example of driving, whilst a person holds no unconditional right to drive, if they prove competent, then they are entitled the right to drive. Applying this, if the individual(s) displays a level of competence, then they are entitled to a license, otherwise they will have to reapply, like other forms of
P1. Some activities need to be regulated as they cause harm.
P2. Parenting can cause harm.
C. Therefore, parenting is an activity that needs to be regulated.
LaFollette introduces the argument by proposing instances where regulation is a necessary condition to prevent potential harm arising, from what is referred to as harmful activities. Such activities include the distribution of medicine, providing legal advice and driving a car. LaFollette (1980, P.184) accepts that whilst denying an individual a license can cause inconvenience, it is necessary for innocent people to be protected. To explain this clearer, LaFollette is considering a trade off between an individual’s dreams and an individual’s protection; however, individual protection is of more importance. For an activity to be regulated, LaFollette proposes a criterion, consisting of two necessary conditions:
(A) The act itself is a potentially harmful activity.
(B) A level of competence is required.
Using this, he infers that licensing can be applied to parents, …show more content…
The fundamental theoretical objection is that some people believe they have a right to a child. This objection follows as, similar to the right of freedom of speech, a person holds a natural right to have children; hence it is illegitimate to license such a right. In response, LaFollette uses the example of driving, whilst a person holds no unconditional right to drive, if they prove competent, then they are entitled the right to drive. Applying this, if the individual(s) displays a level of competence, then they are entitled to a license, otherwise they will have to reapply, like other forms of