Philosophical Vegan Forum

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:^
I'm not certain if it's illegal, but I would consider it unethical as I don't think adoption agencies should have the right to impose their values on otherwise law abiding citizens. Should a Christian adoption agency have the right to only offer children to Christian parents?

Why? Their values are right, and all they're doing is not giving some people the opportunity to harm others. They're not forcing others to agree with them.

The difference between this and the Christian agency scenario is that this agency is stopping parents from harming kids, while the Christian agency would actually be harming kids, regardless of what it thinks it's doing.

I think what you're saying may be comparable to saying, "It's unethical for vegans refuse to prepare meat for meat-eaters. Vegans might not want to eat meat, but they'd be imposing their values on others by doing that, so it's wrong."

But maybe you're saying it's more of an issue like... "How can we make the laws so that adoption agencies have the legal right to refuse kids to abusive but technically law-abiding parents, without allowing adoption agencies to say that parents who aren't Christians don't fall under this category? Sure, those people are wrong, but how would it work in practice?"
Hm...

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:It would probably be acceptable to beat a child in self defense. It would probably not be the best method or even an effective method of preventing the assault, but in such a high stress scenario it might be justified.

In self-defense, ok, and only to the extent where you stop the kid from causing harm. But I was thinking about it being acceptable as a form of punishment or not.

If it's not best method, then I think that that might excuse the person doing it, but not the action itself.

EquALLity wrote: How is it arbitrary? They don't want the kids to be subjected to abuse.

Because they'll say the same thing about atheist parents, or vegan parents. Adoption agencies are not necessarily basing their decisions on science.

Yes, spanking IS bad -- but how much spanking is occurring? Not being adopted, and having children languishing in the system is also bad.
It's not clear that the former is worse. Adoption agents can be overly cautious to the point of irrational bias, when we should be making adoption easier, not harder.
Yes, some kids may be put in bad situations -- that's unfortunate -- but so many more will be adopted into loving homes and unburden the system. It's a question of the weight of these consequences against each other.

EquALLity wrote:What's wrong with not helping others do the wrong thing?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

The wrong is in bogging down adoption proceedings, and discouraging people from adopting, resulting in more children languishing in the system.

EquALLity wrote: But maybe you're saying it's more of an issue like... "How can we make the laws so that adoption agencies have the legal right to refuse kids to abusive but technically law-abiding parents, without allowing adoption agencies to say that parents who aren't Christians don't fall under this category? Sure, those people are wrong, but how would it work in practice?"
Hm...

That's an important part of it, yes. There are also practical considerations, as I mentioned. Adoption agencies can be overly strict, and that causes problems even when they aren't being completely irrational as in denying children to atheist or vegan parents.

Shadow Fox wrote:Certain times, only extreme circumstances I think it might be ok to do it,

I don't think any action is always wrong, but what are you thinking of here where it'd be acceptable?[/quote]

Spanking would be acceptable if you catch your 5 year old playing with matches, or your kid doing drugs or drinking or something that could either get them thrown in jail or harm them very very badly. THEN spanking, viciously spanking, beating, and lots of yelling is acceptable. For their own good. I mean, that shit gonna potentially kill them or ruin their life. Other then that, never ever ever ever never never land ever!

Shadow Fox wrote:Spanking would be acceptable if you catch your 5 year old playing with matches, or your kid doing drugs or drinking or something that could either get them thrown in jail or harm them very very badly. THEN spanking, viciously spanking, beating, and lots of yelling is acceptable. For their own good. I mean, that shit gonna potentially kill them or ruin their life. Other then that, never ever ever ever never never land ever!

In the situation with the matches, why would you have to spank them when simply taking the matches away would suffice? You could take them, explain that is isn't a good thing to play with matches, and put the matches somewhere where they cannot reach them. How old would a child have to be to gain access to drugs and alcohol? It sounds like you meant a teenager, in which case a spanking or beating them will likely not work and you may even receive a physical response from them, teenagers are a bit bigger and stronger than children, and may not be intimidated that way and if they are, I would think that they are being abused.

Insert name here wrote:

Shadow Fox wrote:Spanking would be acceptable if you catch your 5 year old playing with matches, or your kid doing drugs or drinking or something that could either get them thrown in jail or harm them very very badly. THEN spanking, viciously spanking, beating, and lots of yelling is acceptable. For their own good. I mean, that shit gonna potentially kill them or ruin their life. Other then that, never ever ever ever never never land ever!

In the situation with the matches, why would you have to spank them when simply taking the matches away would suffice? You could take them, explain that is isn't a good thing to play with matches, and put the matches somewhere where they cannot reach them. How old would a child have to be to gain access to drugs and alcohol? It sounds like you meant a teenager, in which case a spanking or beating them will likely not work and you may even receive a physical response from them, teenagers are a bit bigger and stronger than children, and may not be intimidated that way and if they are, I would think that they are being abused.

Because taking it away and explaining things to them in cases like that will never work. It didn't with me and it wouldn't with other kids.
As for the alcohol thing, the parent always wins in every case I always seen and heard of.

Or just be a real parent, and teach the child about matches, then leave the child to play with matches to satisfy the curiosity (keep an eye on the situation and keep a fire extinguisher handy).
If the child gets burnt, that will be a much better teaching moment, and it will come from the match, not from an abusive parent, so it will not teach the child to use violence to solve problems, and will not damage the relationship between parent and child with physical abuse.

^
I agree completely. Well said.