| dc.description.abstract | In general, in 1989, United Nations adopted the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” which promotes the movement of contemporary children rights. The covention helped children’s rights obtained an officially legal support and protected children’s basic rights. However, its does not signify that children received a moral respect as adults have. Also, it does not mean that children obtained fair rights. If children and adults do not have morally difference, why do them receive a dissimilar treatment of rights distribution? This article is to discuss a conscious argument of “why children cannot possess the same right as adults have”. The skeleton of this dissection will base on positive and negative discussions of Paternalism and Children’s Liberationism, and will limit the children rights on the scope of moral rights to find a possibility for children to obtain an equal rights. All of discussions will not involve in exploring other basic rights.
This article starts with an opposing view of paternalism, that is, base on protectionism to expand all ideas. Basically, the Anti-equal Rights of Children(ARC) argument and protective argument compose the protectionism. The ARC argument is to reject Equal Rights of Children(ERC) by age and ability restriction, that indicates children are disqualify to entail currently adult’s right. The protective argument is a typical parental predominated argument. This demonstration is different from currently type of rights when discusses the children rights, but appeal to psychological Positivism and philosophical utilitarianism. It emphasizes that children have essential defects; therefore, adults’ interference is needed. Thus, paternalism could ensure children’s best interests and achieve its core goal. However, ERC will possibly conflict with paternalism’s core goal, and deny children to obtain the equal rights. Children’s Liberationism directed against Paternalism’s AERC argument by attacking age and ability rights’ positive connection and appeal to “Justice principle” to refute the demonstration. Also, Children’s Liberationism retorts that protective argument’s interfering protection type and reveal Paternalism’ s contradiction, that is, the paternalism by using utilitarianism’s argument which cannot sensible support and protect children’s best interests. Furthermore, Children’s Liberationism revealed that Paternalism’s protectionism implies an ideology of childhood. The ideology resists children obtaining more freedom from rights. It only expands adult’s rights and ignores children’s best interests and causes a normal oppression problem to children.
After positive and negative arguments, this article concludes that equal right for children has its possibility even though equal rights for children cannot break through currently type of restriction of rights distribution. This article also introspects the possible deficiencies from ERC argument of Children’s Liberationism and brings up acceptable suggestions for Children’s Liberationism and Paternalism. | en_US |