It's very true. I had a talk lately, my parents gave me a shitty childhood, I've been an adult for a few years now, and they sorta reconciled, appologized and changed their way. But there is simply something there that is not letting me forgive them.
@@e-agjohn8176 You still have to forgive them regardless. They just didn't know any better, or had other reasons why they did that, but they are still humans regardless that makes mistakes. Your feelings of contempt towards them is absolutely valid, its ok to feel that way.
"And what's more, your parents didn't provide for you with the expectation of a payout." - 2:51 They do. A lot of traditional (and I mean religious/cultural-wise) Asian parents do.
while this is relatively true I think that this idea is typically thought after childbirth, when their in school or when they realize their child is smart or have that potential and can become rich but I'm sure that once they've decided not to abort them they are not thinking about the cash they can receive from them, therefore the theory still apllies,
What about in the good ol days when kings/lords had children for the sake of having on of them succeed their seats/thrones? Or people who have children to have enough hands to help out in the farm?
I love this video. When I was growing up, my father and stepmother kept a tally of things we owed them. They constantly berated me and reminded me of how weird I was. My father was then shocked (I'm not sure if this was genuine or another one of their favourite gas lighting techniques) when, as an adult, I didn't just run for the hills, I sprinted.
I wouldn't want my kids to feel guilted into spending time with me, or doing something (like having my grandkids) for me. Seems like a pretty shitty relationship if they only hang out with me out of guilt.
The actual quote about blood being thicker than water is misinterpreted. The original saying was blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb. So, bonds made in battle are worth more than simply genetics.
I have, and all references lead nowhere. I haven't found a single literary source that dates that meaning of the expression back more than a handful of years. So I'm asking if you know of one.
Mental health check, and questions about raising a child and how to deal with problems that may arise. Also, how to deal with selfish feelings of frustration and anger, and how to not take them out of the child. I'm assuming free classes would teach the specifics.
if your child turned out to be disabled or have other kinds of socially uacceptable difficulty would you still love and care for them? Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Agree - Strongly Agree.
+Alice Sarah Beck While this sounds good in theory, when given a general description in politics, "mental health checks" can translate to a lot of trouble for people with relatively innocent mental healthy deviancies, such as people with high-functioning autism or ADD. Recently, for my driver's license, I had to have an interview with a doctor and pay significantly for that interview. I had to explain that I have PDD-nos within the autism spectrum, that I don't have a lot of trouble, unless it's a very specific situation. Also, I use ritalin, because PDD-nos often comes with ADD-like symptoms. I was almost refused outright by the system, because the laws were not up to date with healthcare practices that often proscribes ritalin for people with PDD-nos. I was able to produce a diagnosis of ADD just in time, but that sort of thing happens more often than you'd think. I think that there's a very real chance that the ignorance of politicians putting these kinds of licenses in place could lead to people like myself being unable to raise children with the same mental deviance that they themselves can best identify with.
Parents licenses would be awesome. Problem is, it would be difficult to stop people from having kids without a license. It would also need to include a psychological evaluation .. as a person who was neglected badly as a child I have to really praise you and thank you for this episode. So many people tell me I should feel obligations toward my family, because they supplied me (if not with enough) with material goods. I have had so many people trying to make me feel guilty. It is nice to hear a different answer, which reflects so many points. Thank you for making such a helpful episode.
"isn't blood thicker than water?" Technically, yes. But the axiom, "blood thicker than water", means the opposite of how everybody uses it. The original saying is: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb" Basically; the people you choose to have in your life are more important than familial obligations.
@@botigamer9011 Well in that case, I observe that the density and the viscosity of magma or lava is higher than water, blood, or maple syrup. Therefore, I have a higher loyalty to the core of the earth and volcanoes. Also, what about neutron stars and black holes. (I know that was a joke please no woosh)
I like the idea of parent licenses to an extent, though I feel like many would consider that to be too intrusive of the government. At that point, for example, you could weed out people with certain views who would raise their kids to have their own perspectives, almost selectively breeding schools of thought. If parent licenses were to be a thing, we would have to make it as transparent and decentralized a process as possible.
I absolutely agree with you. I even might add that the parents-to-be are allowed to repeat the licensing exam as much as necessary - someday, all the pedagogical knowledge will be stuck in their head. And with transparency and maybe yearly (or every five years or so) check-up´s, many problems and mistreatments could be prevented, leading the children to grow up to decent human beings - the plan to improve society
Tabasco sauce? Gasoline? Mr. Clean? It's one of those... I can't remember which. It's been months since I've seen my 25 kids, but they're around here somewhere. Drinking all my damn gasoline!
It was probably the brother or sister of whoever writes the scripts (or the editor who filters stuff, or the producer who will deny the episode if their anecdote is not included...)
I have two issues with the idea of "parenting licenses": 1) Being a "good parent" *sounds* like something we ought to be able to agree on, but I can see it getting tricky. People already disagree regularly about corporal punishment and religious education (just to name two topics off the top of my head) and anyone who is a parent currently (me, for example) can tell you that pretty much any decision you make for your kids will net you criticism from somewhere. *Tl;dr "good parenting" is not an uncontroversial topic, so who gets to decide what it is?* 2) The reason gun, hunting, fishing, and driving licenses all work is that those are activities you have to consciously opt into. You can become a parent (or at least a prospective parent) entirely by accident (in fringe cases you don't even need to have sex with anyone). How does our prospective license handle people who became prospective parents by accident or against their will, and who fail the test?
For what it's worth, I agree with you on those. My point was just that a lot of people don't (and some people view the absence of things like religious education and corporal punishment as damaging to children) so getting a consensus on what "good parenting" looks like from a legislative level is probably going to be tricky.
I feel that it would be best if the test focused more on how to deal with certain aspects of raising a child- like a child's specific needs at different ages, how to deal with stress/not take it out on the child, the scientifically proven most efficient ways to teach a lesson, how NOT to spoil your child, a basic check on the individual's worth ethic and priorities, the test should also check for mental health and motivations for having a kid.
But you see there are some clear case of bad parenting cases that could be avoided if we had test that could profile and help prevent certain people from getting their hands on kids from the start, for example homes with signs of drug abuse, excessive violence, or even sexual abuse, in fact we already enforce this taking their kids away, but this happens after the fact, with parenting licenses we could apply prevention.
From my comment: You run in to the problem of "how do you enforce the rule?" Where...like...OK, do you force them to have an abortion? That sounds wrong. Do you take the child away if they don't pass the test before the baby leaves the hospital? A bit more reasonable. I mean, if they can't pass the test after 9+ months of classes and testing...I wouldn't want anyone raised by them then. (Assuming the test was fair and actually about welfare of the child, and not some sort of political...wait...a law that isn't political. Nvm.)
I'd take a middle of the road approach. you are required to follow parenting courses upon expecting a child. were not going to license parenthood. essentially speaking you hope that what was taught at these courses sticks and benefits the child. and if not, well we still have child protective services in place. the focus of such courses should be to provide parents with tools not to dictate them on how to raise their children.
the state and a fine... 1% of discretionary was 11.1bilion (in 2015) dollars that would more than pay for it and all you have to do is spend only 53% on the military instead. hopefully, this will limit the number of cases child protective services will have to deal with and these savings can offset the costs of these courses. the punishment is obviously a fine anything more is complete overkill. don't ask questions you could have easily answered by yourself, please.
+lucidity...because the kind of people who have unplanned pregnancies and would need those classes are exactly the type of people who pay attention in mandatory state education.
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen What if they are too poor to visit the doctor that often, and live in a country wherein healthcare is not covered by the state? That plan would seem to suggest that the poor are unfit to be parents, because they cannot afford to take their child to the doctor so often (likely only go if something is wrong, not for semi-annual check-ups). Wouldn't that essentially be only allowing people to raise children if they meet a certain income requirement (enough money to pay for frequent medical bills)? Seems like a slippery slope, until medical care is provided by the state.
lucidity How big will that fine be? And whats the point of that fine anyway, too punish those who are in financially difficult situation even more? Furthermore, why would state have to pay for that. It's you that wants to have a child not a state. And do not even get started on that he will become taxpayer one day, because unless you want to enforce serfdom, you cannot really expect that. It's funny how in almost everything child related socialist claim to know and care the best. Whether it is education or even right to have children. I think evolutionary instincts to take great of our offsprings and empathy for also children in need has got us so far, and it would be stupid too enforce something on whole population because some fringe cases. And finally as education has clearly shown to USA, parents deciding what is best for their children on avarage leads to much better results then to have state make those desicions for you.
that's the problem, it would imply using mandetory temporary sterilization on early teens or something like china's one child policy but much more selective. and what if you got a a kid with no licence? are they just gonna take him/her away? Are they sending to jail or subjecting you to a fine? All solutions seem immoral but the concept itself isnt'
ID databases and mandatory blood tests for parental identification. No child born without parental identification in the hospital would be legal. It's not like there isn't already a problem with children born without a birth certificate, but then at least then there would be an effort to educate people on the mechanics of child rearing.
I'm Asian. My parents think I owe them everything including money, time, attention, and even making important life choices. Lol. Good thing I left them and never looked back.
As an adopted child, I am all for parental licenses. My parents went through a very long process to adopt me, and I think it would benefit all children if their parents went through the same process.
In the vaguest theoretical sense, I love the idea of parent licenses (I work at a daycare and, yeah, they would make my daily life amazing) but as soon as you put it into practice the massive questions are how do you enforce it (mandatory long term but reversible birth control at puberty) and who gets to decide what the requirements are (because when the morals you want to instill don't match those of the people in power...)
Yes I think one should require a license before becoming a parent. But there's another argument as to why you should maintain family obligations, and it's a selfish one. I believe I heard this example given in Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" There are three types of people in the world, Grandmothers, Mothers, and Daughters. Everyone consumes 1 unit of food but only Mothers are able to get food (they're able to get 3 units of food). A seemingly optimal setting would be for Mothers to only give food to themselves and their daughters (1.5 food each) so as to give them their best chance of survival ... but you're modelling behaviour that Grandmothers should be neglected. When the Mothers become Grandmothers and their Daughters become Mothers, the previous Mother wouldn't want to be neglected as a Grandmother, so to avoid this, they model the 'everyone gets a share' behaviour, so they can live out life as a Grandmother (and aren't just discarded once they become Grandmothers).
Back when my wife and I divorced, I took a Parent Effectiveness Training course that was offered by someone in the community. This is based on the book of the same name by Thomas Gordon and is available on Amazon. It was a pretty good course.
Been thinking of a licence for parents ever since I was about 22. My mom thought I was crazy but her friend agreed. I am glad to see it was brought up here, to me it's still a no-brainer that it would benefit society greatly.
I'd say conditional is better. If your parents were manipulative, abusive, oppressive, or generally uncaring. Then they lose any claim they had to your time and care. Otherwise, even if you don't really like them, you should suck it up and help anyway cause it's generally good and responsible to help your family.
I've put a lot of thought into the whole "parenting license " thing, and I think a good trade off between the Orwellian future that would hold and the flawed non-preventive system we have now, would be to provide an incentive for parents who go through the licensing process and prove competency. It could be either economic, or be legally required for things like maternal/ paternal leave (although I COULD see the latter having unintended consequences tbh)
I think this depends on where you live. In countries like Scandinavia this mindset is much more common than e.g. the US. One reason for this is that it is much more expensive to have a child in the US than in Scandinava. In the US parents can say, look at how much money I had to spend on education and taking care of you - now you have to take care of me. In Scandinavia, healthcare and education is free so it makes no sense for parents to talk like this.
There's something alluring about the idea of making people prove their worthiness to reproduce, but just imagine the draconian measures that would be needed to stop the rejects. I do believe that's a cure worse than the disease.
My comment will surely get lost in the swarm, but I'd like to say I really appreciate this guy's explanations. He's really really clear and concise. He finds good examples and despite his swift verborrhea I have no problem understanding him (yet English is only my second language!). It's very important to have good diction when your audience is probably broader than your original country's. Having closed captions is a nice touch, but the on-screen phrasing as he speaks in the key moments really helps to catch on the concepts. Contratulations!
Parenting licence would be great in a Utopian world, not so much in the real world. It would be very difficult to enforce. Not everyone would go through the trouble, and what about those having coitus for pleasure and accidentally cause pregnancy without taking a parenting test? Are they required to abort? Would we have to orphan all the illegally born kids? I suppose we could create a widespread stigma in society against those who illegally birth children. But that still wouldn't fix it, and it can't just be a test people are required to take at say 18, because a person's fit for parenthood changes over time as their situation changes.
For me accidental preganancy should be treated like this: The couple (or single mom) should first be examined (as in see the economic backgrounds and if family members will help), then take a couple of tests to see their knowledge on the subject. If they don't pass, they take classes (they have 9 months, so they'll find time), and do so until they pass. What happens if they don't pass? well, that's a pickle. I guess it would have to be examined case by case what they lack. If they lack knowledge, then more classes. If they look like they wouldn't take care of their kids (hence neglected child) then I think adoption would be the best. Think about it, if the parents really wanted the kids, they would do their all to pass (it's not like the process would be difficult, as no one is a prefect parent. But at least common sense, basic knowledge and show that you CARE). If you do not pass after all this, then you'd just make your kid's life miserable. As for ensuring that your parents are licensed, they should present the paper for when you get a passport, apply you to schools, get you a credit card or things like that. This way you'll ensure most parents are licensed. As for illegally born kids, when the parents are caught, they should first pay a fine, (this will promote people to gte licensed first) and after that all the process I explained before (of examination and exams), they go on with their lives. Plus, I think the license should be free, or at least the cost should depend on how much you earn, so that poor people that are still capable of raising kids should be allowed. In the end, the ones who do not get the license are those who didn't care enough, ergo, those who won't care about their kids. I believe something like this would be wonderful, as it would help in the prevention of abused or neglected kids, because, more often than not, these cases are discovered too late, when the damage has already been done.
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be. "Oh, so it seems you're pregnant. You have to register yourself using this website -or- call this number. If you don't follow the procedure, you will be fined on your tax returns so do think of doing it". "So it seems that you failed the test but tried in good faith. You can avoid the fines by scheduling a second try on the exam within the next 6 months. Remember, all you need to study is in _this_ booklet. Moreover, we offer free parenting classes for young parents that failed the test. Would you like to register with one of our counselors?" "You've failed to register for a take back of your test and had to pay the parenting fine. Remember, for the second year the fine will double. Make sure to register for a take back of the test". "So, you've failed the test several times. We'd like you to be able to meet two of our agents. They can go to your place. Yes, it's mandatory to avoid the fines." "Well Mrs. [...] we think you would benefit from a follow up with your psychiatrist. Do you need help arranging that?" etc. etc. Just pass an add on TV starting the year before it start: "Planning a pregnancy, from [that date] forward, a mandatory check up with a doctor and written test will be necessary. Ask your doctor about [...] or visit [...].gov. A message from [...]".
I've always thought that not any person should become a parent, and it should be regulated by somebody. I'm glad there is a philosopher who agrees with me.
A big problem with the parenting license is that it has such heavy and obvious room for abuse, there are eugenics arguments only a slippery slope down from there
I really hate making up names for this kind of stuff - That's not even considering the possibility that the number of children you could have could be limited by the government as well
You know that slippery slope is a logical fallacy, right? It's not a valid philosophical argument-it uses fear to avoid actually entertaining an idea by asserting that it could or must lead to some bad extreme. Just because a license for parenting is being proposed doesn't mean that the requirements for such a license have to be based on class, race, whatever. It could be based on the actual ability to raise a child in a healthy environment (expendable income of the parents, mental health of the parents, sanitation of the home, etc).
James Miller So I just did a quick check and Wikipedia has a whole section of the "Slippery Slope" entitled Non-fallacious usage. I know Wikipedia isn't an awesome source 100% of the time, but it will have to do until I can read the book The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope by Eugene Volokh - so it appears The Slippery Slope can be used in a non-fallacious manner
I think this was the best episode so far... it was valuable because I hadn't really scrutinized my beliefs in this area before (aside from the licensing thing), and I don't think I'm alone. Most adults can't explain reasons why they behave in certain ways towards their parents and just think there's no other option.
@@queenbedamnedsheiba I've noticed that people who are okay with others not living or ironically say "yeah maybe I shouldn't have been born" actually enjoy being alive quite a bit, as they should. Living is awesome.
@@Shrugboatt uhum, if you are healthy born and preferably "1st worlder". (which i am, too by the way). I've seen people around whose life is pure suffering. because of child abuse, alcholol abuse, complete lack of love, or other more objective measures; such as lethal illnesses that weck havoc on you till you die. (if you happen to be bor with one). I still value life per se, i still think some people's lives are hell due to their genetical code, or due to lack of basic education or any kind of decent living conditions provided by parents. moreover i sense that majority of people have kids because they wont to "fullfill something" in their life and not let tchem live freely and experience life. and then (especially and primarly) when they have bad realtionship themselves they make this disgusting family constelation of "loving son or daughter more than actual spouse".. i've seen so many Times.. i wished only certain and worhty of it people would be fertile(and i don't mean myself, i dont care if i am cause i dont plan on having kids, its a personal choice, it doesnt mean i hate them or anything, theyre usualy a victim of the whole game).. it would reduce so much suffering in this world
I like the conditional view of family obligations. In my family I have adopted cousins who were abused before being adopted and they owe their abusive 'parents' nothing and if your parents are good to you, your going to want to 'repay' the debt even if it doesn't really exist. I'm no philosopher it just made sense to me.
I would love to say I support a parenting license, but the problem, as always, is people. It will definitely be used to ensure only competent parents can get a license, but their definition of competent parent isn't the same as the one most of you probably thought of. It's a really easy method to eliminate groups you happen to dislike. Simply deny them the ability to reproduce. Also, the only way to enforce such a system is to stop reproduction from being possible until a license is obtained. Forced sterility programs are... Uncomfortable...
I wish cc would dive into their comments and select the ones that best explain or discuss. The critiques as well that highlight specific and general principles in the networks of these philosophies.
I strongly agree with a conditional view of family obligations. By all means, if your parents poured love and self-sacrifice into raising you, give them the respect they deserve, but no one deserves respect simply for being a parent. And in fact, there are some parents who are horrible to their children, and in those cases, sometimes it's better to cut them out of your life entirely. You should never feel obligated or indebted to a parent who neglects or abuses you. However, if your parent did great by you, and sacrificed a lot for you, then yes, I feel you are selfish if you simply walk away and don't ever try to give anything back. Sure, your parents may not feel you owe them anything, but I think you should feel a desire to repay their kindness. But, all that said, I don't feel like that obligation has anything special simply because of blood. If someone who isn't actually related to you made the same sort of sacrifices for you, you should feel equally obligated to repay their kindness. Also, I've seen enough horrible parents to think a parental license, as controversial as it may be, might not be such a terrible idea. Of course, it could easily be abused by a fascist government, so there's that... I could imagine Trump decreeing that no one who voted against him could breed.
Florence MacKenna I agree with your sentiment about the conditional view of obligations. I'm glad you can see how a parenting liscense would be bad as well, though you're only? looking at it from that perspective- it could also be used against the disabled, gay people, trans people, POCs or people who worship alternative religions, like those who worship pagan gods or other religions other than say.... Christianity. In an ideal world, though? I'd love it.
Tabby Feral That's essentially what I meant by it being abused by a fascist government. To keep "undesirables" from reproducing. A fascist government could simply set the requirements of such a test in a way that would automatically disqualify any people they don't like.
friendship do keeps tabs and stuff.... of course it works with love as well but when it requires money into the equation then the equation breaks...... but for family it is always unconditional regardless of money or whatever... this only includes ur immediate family though~~
I was always good to my parents. Even though I lived 2000 miles away from them due to the military. I visited every year and took them anywhere they wanted to go. I took care f my father when he was dying and helped care for my elderly mother as well. She is still living. I did those things because they were my parents and I loved them. NOT because I "owed" them. I'm a firm believer that the only thing a grown child owes theory parents is respect
I'm an Indian and afaik, in Asia, but in India, China, Japan, kids are supposed to take care of their aging parents as they grow old. It is not an obligation, but a matter of pride. That limits your mobility to undertaking job/business opportunities at far places of the world, but being with parents is totally worth it, as today the internet is connecting the world better than before. The root of this culture is the lack of proper insurances and medical benefits in these countries. Male children especially take care of both parents, stay with them and pay their debt to their parents in terms of their health and parents are happy to see their children progress. If there's just one daughter, then her husband and herself will take care of her parents.
greatidea11 see in the US it somehow got twisted. The system was supposed to be parents care for you, u get married, have kids and ur parents care for the kids, while you care for them and so on and so forth but somewhere along the line we started making it a matter of "national pride" to be out of ur parents house at 18 instead of when people would actually be ready and mature to live a "real" life. It's pretty shitty
*Compassion* has driven many society to become more egalitarian, trying to reach a positive sum game. With this in mind I think that taking care of your parents regardless of the quality of their education, expect cases of neglect or abuse, is a sign of a society becoming more compassionate, encouraging individuals to strive for a less egotistical behavior.
My philosophy includes an important circles of care component. The circles of care concept recognizes that you care most about those in the tightest relationships with you and least about slugs on the planet Zarquon. But my philosophy recognizes this and states that it makes sense and you needn't change that fact. But it also says that there is a balance to be struck and benefits to be had by conciously training yourself to instinctively care for the wider circles. All of them, even the one that includes the slugs of Zarquon.
If you want to create a life You've got to be qualified Now you need to earn it. If you want to propagate First prove you can educate Parental Procreation Permit
Parenting styles are very different so it'd be difficult to have one test to take. However, there could be funded programs for expected parents with materials for them to read and review and an area to gain knowledge and ask questions.
In a place like India where parenting is in such a bade shape, I have thought about the whole issue in the last two years. I am not surprised, considering the smart people behind this crash course, that all the thoughts talked about in this video and my thoughts overlap exactly, including the thought bubble. It is such an amazing feeling to ultimately find out that we are not alone in our thoughts.
I like the idea of a parenting license in theory; you have to show that you are competent and willing to raise a child in order to pass and obtain said license. In theory, this would prevent children from being raised by neglectful or incompetent parents, which is good. The problem that I have, though, is that this could lead to discrimination towards certain parents. What about single parents? A group of parents, rather than two? Same gender parents? And what about parents that accidentally conceive? Would they have to apply for a license and be approved so they could keep their child? There are a lot of logistics that would have to get hammered out before I could totally endorse the idea, but I do think it has merit.
Whoa, I was just talking with my sisters about this over the holidays. Not sure about the parenting license thing, but the discussion over obligations and family social contracts is really interesting.
Wish this episode would have covered obligations to parents under different ideologies (e.g. Under Confucianism), and how in developing countries children are considered one's retirement plan where there is no state wellfair for the elderly. Also, part of the decision to have kids can be influenced by a desire to carry on a bloodline, hold certain positions of power or certain family assets, or to propagate a certain ideology that the family holds.
I'm pretty split on the license thing. On one hand, yeah, having a screaming to prevent shitty parents sounds amazing. On the other hand, there is too much opportunity for discrimination, which already happens with adoption. Then there is the big problem of bodily autonomy. Especially if you are pro-choice; assuming people have the right to end a pregnancy because it's their body, it also stands that people have the right to get and stay pregnant.
I believe that people must do courses of how to be a responsible parent, what important is to have a healthy family for the kids, and how important is family for society, but I do not consider necessary to have a license.
Josh Wi I think it's related to how a baby's brain is much less developed than an adult's. In fact, the brain is only fully developed at 25! So a kid plain lacks the ability to make legal and moral choices on the same level as an adult, who can, if their economy/health allows it, move to another country to avoid laws.
Exactly, if a person can't be a moral agent because their brain is undeveloped, why do we expect them to uphold any contract they can neither comprehend nor legally and morally be contracted to (the laws of society for example)? I fully understand that it would be useless to have laws which a person under the age of 25 doesn't need to abide by - I just think it's weird to incur some obligations at birth and not others.
Josh Wi Well, in my country children bellow the age of 15 can't be punished by the law, it's their parents who pay for their crimes. Meaning they aren't forced to adhere to laws they can't understand. So I can't really relate to your view there.
Maja N Technically speaking, while you're a member of a country from birth, you aren't expected to fully abide by the laws of their government until you are of an age to begin making decisions. In most countries, minors are prosecuted in a different way and it really only applies to the major laws: those required to keep basic civility. Given that, you technically only have to abide by laws once you are old enough to have the option to leave the country. This is akin to the college student living at home for free; it's a separate contract made with full consent.
This is, generally speaking, why societies attempt to reflect the desires of their populace. Children cannot be expected to buy in to the social contract and instead have to be enticed into playing along or, in the case of society failing to do so, they become deviants. (people who do not follow the principles of their governing body) Because of this a society slowly changes over time (sometimes maddeningly slowly) to account for changes in the desires of its people. A society that does not change fast enough or that refuses to change (usually dictatorships) will almost inevitably fall apart.
I think it's kind of like a Kantian-esque control conditon - what society holistically demands vs. what you individually desire. I think the former can be expressed in terms of the latter, so I think it can be solved, and the solution is context dependent, hinging on what the individual wants more.
I really liked this episode. It's weird I think the same as the philosophers reviewd in the video. I think many people are not in a good position to have a family, or to bare with children when they can't deal with their own problems. But a test to be a parent doesn't exist. That is why it's difficult to know when children have problems at home, or even young adults. I think we should have a frienship relationship towards our parents as we grow and we don't owe them anything. They did bring us to the world because of their own choice and we didn't choose to be born. If we treat our parents well or they treat us well it should be because of kindness and frienship. If love begins to be an obligation then it's not love.
90% of potential parents would fail miserably at the test. But it's a great idea because people would finally start realizing how messed up society really is, and thus refuse to bring anymore children into this disaster.
When you give money to a beggar, it may not because you feel pity for them, maybe just because you have money and they're not so you give out to comfort your soul; and when you do that, you feel great inside (so your action benefits you first, then to the beggar). You don't expect the beggar to give you back anything. However, in all case, the beggar, morally, should takes some action, at least remembers you as their savior as your action benefits him/her as well. Then, both you and the beggar, are bounded to rules: morally rules. You VOLUNTARILY donate and the beggar remember VOLUNTARILY. That what makes this world wonderful. The same thing happens to parents and children. Parents (choose to have children and that action benefit them first, then to the children) raise the children and shouldn't expect them to do anything, but children should know by themselves that pay back parents is a good thing to do because their action benefits you. Please stop talking about contract, duty or responsibility, think about volunteering instead. Say thanks and pay back to anyone who help you, regard their purposes. If you don't understand then it's my fault, my English is not good. Thank for reading - K.N
Could these videos have the pillar of philosophy in the title? It would really help if I knew if the video was metaphysics or epistemology before I started watching it. It makes studying easier.
I like Hugh. I've had that thought many times. And while it seems ridiculous in the current social context, I can easily see such a law being implemented in a slightly more competitive future. This sort of thing is already carried out in some way or another via benefits or penalties based on the number of children you have. Some countries do it to increase or decrease population growth
I’ve been saying that parents should be licensed, for like decades now. And that there is absolutely no obligation to them whatsoever, it was their decision, not yours. Yet there is a great deal of self value in the acceptance and love for them. Whatever their parenting skills were or weren’t. Love for them is quite accurately love for your self. And this doesn’t mean you should follow their steps or their will... Had 9 siblings so well.. that’s that
"Children begin by loving their parents; after a time they judge them; rarely, if ever, do they forgive them." ~Oscar Wilde
I'm going to comment so that I can refer back to this when the time comes
It's very true. I had a talk lately, my parents gave me a shitty childhood, I've been an adult for a few years now, and they sorta reconciled, appologized and changed their way. But there is simply something there that is not letting me forgive them.
@@e-agjohn8176 You still have to forgive them regardless. They just didn't know any better, or had other reasons why they did that, but they are still humans regardless that makes mistakes. Your feelings of contempt towards them is absolutely valid, its ok to feel that way.
@@boysteacher3818 NO forgiveness is not required.
"And what's more, your parents didn't provide for you with the expectation of a payout." - 2:51
They do. A lot of traditional (and I mean religious/cultural-wise) Asian parents do.
while this is relatively true I think that this idea is typically thought after childbirth, when their in school or when they realize their child is smart or have that potential and can become rich but I'm sure that once they've decided not to abort them they are not thinking about the cash they can receive from them, therefore the theory still apllies,
not only asian I think it is a common theme across the global south ...region of the world with less wealth.
My parents literally see me as pension fund, because their own will collapse
What about in the good ol days when kings/lords had children for the sake of having on of them succeed their seats/thrones? Or people who have children to have enough hands to help out in the farm?
I love this video.
When I was growing up, my father and stepmother kept a tally of things we owed them. They constantly berated me and reminded me of how weird I was. My father was then shocked (I'm not sure if this was genuine or another one of their favourite gas lighting techniques) when, as an adult, I didn't just run for the hills, I sprinted.
I wouldn't want my kids to feel guilted into spending time with me, or doing something (like having my grandkids) for me.
Seems like a pretty shitty relationship if they only hang out with me out of guilt.
The actual quote about blood being thicker than water is misinterpreted. The original saying was blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb. So, bonds made in battle are worth more than simply genetics.
Seriously? Didn't know that
Now that's interesting. Thanks.
Got an actual literary source on that?
Ian Neufeld If you don't believe me, just look it up yourself.
I have, and all references lead nowhere. I haven't found a single literary source that dates that meaning of the expression back more than a handful of years. So I'm asking if you know of one.
The real question is what would we put on the those tests? What would be considered morally right for children?
Mental health check, and questions about raising a child and how to deal with problems that may arise. Also, how to deal with selfish feelings of frustration and anger, and how to not take them out of the child. I'm assuming free classes would teach the specifics.
Alice Sarah Beck That's a good idea
SangoProductions213 Wow, it's so edgy I cut myself
if your child turned out to be disabled or have other kinds of socially uacceptable difficulty would you still love and care for them?
Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Agree - Strongly Agree.
+Alice Sarah Beck While this sounds good in theory, when given a general description in politics, "mental health checks" can translate to a lot of trouble for people with relatively innocent mental healthy deviancies, such as people with high-functioning autism or ADD.
Recently, for my driver's license, I had to have an interview with a doctor and pay significantly for that interview. I had to explain that I have PDD-nos within the autism spectrum, that I don't have a lot of trouble, unless it's a very specific situation. Also, I use ritalin, because PDD-nos often comes with ADD-like symptoms.
I was almost refused outright by the system, because the laws were not up to date with healthcare practices that often proscribes ritalin for people with PDD-nos. I was able to produce a diagnosis of ADD just in time, but that sort of thing happens more often than you'd think.
I think that there's a very real chance that the ignorance of politicians putting these kinds of licenses in place could lead to people like myself being unable to raise children with the same mental deviance that they themselves can best identify with.
Parents licenses would be awesome. Problem is, it would be difficult to stop people from having kids without a license. It would also need to include a psychological evaluation
.. as a person who was neglected badly as a child I have to really praise you and thank you for this episode. So many people tell me I should feel obligations toward my family, because they supplied me (if not with enough) with material goods. I have had so many people trying to make me feel guilty. It is nice to hear a different answer, which reflects so many points. Thank you for making such a helpful episode.
"isn't blood thicker than water?"
Technically, yes.
But the axiom, "blood thicker than water", means the opposite of how everybody uses it.
The original saying is: "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb"
Basically; the people you choose to have in your life are more important than familial obligations.
My counter-argument: blood is thicker than water, but maple syrup is thicker than blood, so can I have my pancakes please
@@botigamer9011 Well in that case, I observe that the density and the viscosity of magma or lava is higher than water, blood, or maple syrup. Therefore, I have a higher loyalty to the core of the earth and volcanoes. Also, what about neutron stars and black holes. (I know that was a joke please no woosh)
Monday's are awesome only because of CC Philosophy
KingInfinity +
+
I like the CC Philosophy and return of the philip defranco show from the weekend
+
KingInfinity +
I like the idea of parent licenses to an extent, though I feel like many would consider that to be too intrusive of the government. At that point, for example, you could weed out people with certain views who would raise their kids to have their own perspectives, almost selectively breeding schools of thought. If parent licenses were to be a thing, we would have to make it as transparent and decentralized a process as possible.
I think it's more along the lines of HOW you treat the child not what they think.
I absolutely agree with you. I even might add that the parents-to-be are allowed to repeat the licensing exam as much as necessary - someday, all the pedagogical knowledge will be stuck in their head. And with transparency and maybe yearly (or every five years or so) check-up´s, many problems and mistreatments could be prevented, leading the children to grow up to decent human beings - the plan to improve society
What is the name of that philosopher? Hue Lafalat? I searched google found no result on that name.
Actually, he is called Hugh LaFollette. Just activate the subtitles, it´s written there.
Probably still a bad idea for the same reasons a license to vote is a bad idea.
Parent License Exam: Q1. What do babies drink? A) Whiskey B) Milk C) Baby Formula D) B or C E) All of the above.
A
Man whose dumbass designed this test? clearly everyone knows that babies drink vodka, whiskey is for pregnant women!
Tabasco sauce? Gasoline? Mr. Clean? It's one of those... I can't remember which. It's been months since I've seen my 25 kids, but they're around here somewhere. Drinking all my damn gasoline!
Pipe2DevNull B or C
Pipe2DevNull Trick question, the answer is rum. Did I pass?
Did John actually try to dry his socks in a frying pan?
It was probably the brother or sister of whoever writes the scripts (or the editor who filters stuff, or the producer who will deny the episode if their anecdote is not included...)
I did it once. I'm not proud.
I have two issues with the idea of "parenting licenses":
1) Being a "good parent" *sounds* like something we ought to be able to agree on, but I can see it getting tricky. People already disagree regularly about corporal punishment and religious education (just to name two topics off the top of my head) and anyone who is a parent currently (me, for example) can tell you that pretty much any decision you make for your kids will net you criticism from somewhere. *Tl;dr "good parenting" is not an uncontroversial topic, so who gets to decide what it is?*
2) The reason gun, hunting, fishing, and driving licenses all work is that those are activities you have to consciously opt into. You can become a parent (or at least a prospective parent) entirely by accident (in fringe cases you don't even need to have sex with anyone). How does our prospective license handle people who became prospective parents by accident or against their will, and who fail the test?
For what it's worth, I agree with you on those. My point was just that a lot of people don't (and some people view the absence of things like religious education and corporal punishment as damaging to children) so getting a consensus on what "good parenting" looks like from a legislative level is probably going to be tricky.
I feel that it would be best if the test focused more on how to deal with certain aspects of raising a child- like a child's specific needs at different ages, how to deal with stress/not take it out on the child, the scientifically proven most efficient ways to teach a lesson, how NOT to spoil your child, a basic check on the individual's worth ethic and priorities, the test should also check for mental health and motivations for having a kid.
That won't stop us stubborn humans from trying.
But you see there are some clear case of bad parenting cases that could be avoided if we had test that could profile and help prevent certain people from getting their hands on kids from the start, for example homes with signs of drug abuse, excessive violence, or even sexual abuse, in fact we already enforce this taking their kids away, but this happens after the fact, with parenting licenses we could apply prevention.
From my comment:
You run in to the problem of "how do you enforce the rule?" Where...like...OK, do you force them to have an abortion? That sounds wrong.
Do you take the child away if they don't pass the test before the baby leaves the hospital? A bit more reasonable. I mean, if they can't pass the test after 9+ months of classes and testing...I wouldn't want anyone raised by them then. (Assuming the test was fair and actually about welfare of the child, and not some sort of political...wait...a law that isn't political. Nvm.)
I would be for the parental licensing idea, if not for the fact that it can easily turn into a eugenics program
I'd take a middle of the road approach. you are required to follow parenting courses upon expecting a child. were not going to license parenthood. essentially speaking you hope that what was taught at these courses sticks and benefits the child. and if not, well we still have child protective services in place.
the focus of such courses should be to provide parents with tools not to dictate them on how to raise their children.
lucidity Who is going to pay for those courses? What would be punishment if you do not opt in?
the state and a fine...
1% of discretionary was 11.1bilion (in 2015) dollars that would more than pay for it and all you have to do is spend only 53% on the military instead. hopefully, this will limit the number of cases child protective services will have to deal with and these savings can offset the costs of these courses.
the punishment is obviously a fine anything more is complete overkill.
don't ask questions you could have easily answered by yourself, please.
+lucidity...because the kind of people who have unplanned pregnancies and would need those classes are exactly the type of people who pay attention in mandatory state education.
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen What if they are too poor to visit the doctor that often, and live in a country wherein healthcare is not covered by the state? That plan would seem to suggest that the poor are unfit to be parents, because they cannot afford to take their child to the doctor so often (likely only go if something is wrong, not for semi-annual check-ups). Wouldn't that essentially be only allowing people to raise children if they meet a certain income requirement (enough money to pay for frequent medical bills)? Seems like a slippery slope, until medical care is provided by the state.
lucidity How big will that fine be? And whats the point of that fine anyway, too punish those who are in financially difficult situation even more? Furthermore, why would state have to pay for that. It's you that wants to have a child not a state. And do not even get started on that he will become taxpayer one day, because unless you want to enforce serfdom, you cannot really expect that.
It's funny how in almost everything child related socialist claim to know and care the best. Whether it is education or even right to have children. I think evolutionary instincts to take great of our offsprings and empathy for also children in need has got us so far, and it would be stupid too enforce something on whole population because some fringe cases.
And finally as education has clearly shown to USA, parents deciding what is best for their children on avarage leads to much better results then to have state make those desicions for you.
My mum is going to kick me out of my house in one year, this really helped me get some perspective... thanks
2 months left till your kicked out
"your house"? then why is she kicking you out! anyway hopefully the covid-19 lock-down might buy you some more time huh?
I don't know your situation but, if she does the bare-minimum for you, you do the bare minimum for her.
Are you, like, 35 and a 27th level dungeon master?
So how exactly would you prevent people from having kids before they got their license
t.c.a.w Exposed law would certainly help but it would not be a definite solution.
t.c.a.w Exposed We dont technically prevent people from driving cars before they have a license either
that's the problem, it would imply using mandetory temporary sterilization on early teens or something like china's one child policy but much more selective. and what if you got a a kid with no licence? are they just gonna take him/her away? Are they sending to jail or subjecting you to a fine? All solutions seem immoral but the concept itself isnt'
If fining someone or sending them to jail seems immoral, what system of justice are you using?
ID databases and mandatory blood tests for parental identification. No child born without parental identification in the hospital would be legal. It's not like there isn't already a problem with children born without a birth certificate, but then at least then there would be an effort to educate people on the mechanics of child rearing.
That friendship model fits my mom and I perfectly. This was a brilliant episode. Jesus, the philosophy one is POWERFUL. Sad I'm coming to the end.
I misread the title as "Family Obliterations..." I recently watched the Red Wedding Game of Thrones episode.
Master Therion oh my God
Master Therion *tries not to cry*
*Cries a lot*
Master Therion *Rains of Castamere*
I only started watching GoT this month (and I finished it this month as well) and the red wedding was .... one of the most messed up moments of GoT.
Zoey S. I knew it was going to happen and it still caught me off guard
I'm Asian. My parents think I owe them everything including money, time, attention, and even making important life choices. Lol. Good thing I left them and never looked back.
Do you have siblings or are you an only child?
@Mr. & Mrs Smith so they have someone to rely on.
@@maevab2923 If they're asian they probably have enough saved up to last 2 lifetimes anyway.
@@Xellos976 I'm not talking about money but emotional support
Moral of the story: Abandoning your parents is the best option... LOL! I can think many better options without leaving them and "never looking back."
Favorite Crash Course Series to date. Excellent work Crash Course team!
I *didn't ask* to be here.
From all Crash Course's series, this one is my favorite - ever! Have not missed a single video.
This has to be one of the most engaging videos i have seen from CrashCourse! I love it!
Say hello at 6:34 to the stock footage of an old couple drinking wine xD
We've been here too long😂
As an adopted child, I am all for parental licenses. My parents went through a very long process to adopt me, and I think it would benefit all children if their parents went through the same process.
Diaper spelled backwards is repaid
OH MY GOOOOOOOOD!
I have to rethink life now! 48.73% serious.
LOOMYNARTY CONFIRMED
to perfect
+
In the vaguest theoretical sense, I love the idea of parent licenses (I work at a daycare and, yeah, they would make my daily life amazing) but as soon as you put it into practice the massive questions are how do you enforce it (mandatory long term but reversible birth control at puberty) and who gets to decide what the requirements are (because when the morals you want to instill don't match those of the people in power...)
Yes I think one should require a license before becoming a parent.
But there's another argument as to why you should maintain family obligations, and it's a selfish one. I believe I heard this example given in Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene"
There are three types of people in the world, Grandmothers, Mothers, and Daughters. Everyone consumes 1 unit of food but only Mothers are able to get food (they're able to get 3 units of food). A seemingly optimal setting would be for Mothers to only give food to themselves and their daughters (1.5 food each) so as to give them their best chance of survival ... but you're modelling behaviour that Grandmothers should be neglected. When the Mothers become Grandmothers and their Daughters become Mothers, the previous Mother wouldn't want to be neglected as a Grandmother, so to avoid this, they model the 'everyone gets a share' behaviour, so they can live out life as a Grandmother (and aren't just discarded once they become Grandmothers).
Back when my wife and I divorced, I took a Parent Effectiveness Training course that was offered by someone in the community. This is based on the book of the same name by Thomas Gordon and is available on Amazon. It was a pretty good course.
OLD PEOPLE CLINKING GLASSES! My favorite stock footage!
Been thinking of a licence for parents ever since I was about 22. My mom thought I was crazy but her friend agreed. I am glad to see it was brought up here, to me it's still a no-brainer that it would benefit society greatly.
I want to love my family out of love, not out of "moral obligation".
"Blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb"
What "obligations"? I will be nice and help when I can. Same as with everyone else.
I respect how he mentioned adoption. He covered all bases
I'd say conditional is better. If your parents were manipulative, abusive, oppressive, or generally uncaring. Then they lose any claim they had to your time and care. Otherwise, even if you don't really like them, you should suck it up and help anyway cause it's generally good and responsible to help your family.
I've put a lot of thought into the whole "parenting license " thing, and I think a good trade off between the Orwellian future that would hold and the flawed non-preventive system we have now, would be to provide an incentive for parents who go through the licensing process and prove competency. It could be either economic, or be legally required for things like maternal/ paternal leave (although I COULD see the latter having unintended consequences tbh)
somehow i grew up feeling that english's view was self-evidently true...
I think this depends on where you live. In countries like Scandinavia this mindset is much more common than e.g. the US. One reason for this is that it is much more expensive to have a child in the US than in Scandinava. In the US parents can say, look at how much money I had to spend on education and taking care of you - now you have to take care of me. In Scandinavia, healthcare and education is free so it makes no sense for parents to talk like this.
crashcourse philosophy is by far the best series you guys have done
There's something alluring about the idea of making people prove their worthiness to reproduce, but just imagine the draconian measures that would be needed to stop the rejects. I do believe that's a cure worse than the disease.
My comment will surely get lost in the swarm, but I'd like to say I really appreciate this guy's explanations. He's really really clear and concise. He finds good examples and despite his swift verborrhea I have no problem understanding him (yet English is only my second language!). It's very important to have good diction when your audience is probably broader than your original country's. Having closed captions is a nice touch, but the on-screen phrasing as he speaks in the key moments really helps to catch on the concepts. Contratulations!
Parenting licence would be great in a Utopian world, not so much in the real world. It would be very difficult to enforce. Not everyone would go through the trouble, and what about those having coitus for pleasure and accidentally cause pregnancy without taking a parenting test? Are they required to abort? Would we have to orphan all the illegally born kids? I suppose we could create a widespread stigma in society against those who illegally birth children. But that still wouldn't fix it, and it can't just be a test people are required to take at say 18, because a person's fit for parenthood changes over time as their situation changes.
my comment on the issue
ruclips.net/video/p7cOwQQDI7o/видео.html&lc=z13bfnnzlrvgy1oud23qg15jjxiti12ye04
David -flamingsword1 Good points
For me accidental preganancy should be treated like this:
The couple (or single mom) should first be examined (as in see the economic backgrounds and if family members will help), then take a couple of tests to see their knowledge on the subject. If they don't pass, they take classes (they have 9 months, so they'll find time), and do so until they pass.
What happens if they don't pass? well, that's a pickle. I guess it would have to be examined case by case what they lack. If they lack knowledge, then more classes. If they look like they wouldn't take care of their kids (hence neglected child) then I think adoption would be the best. Think about it, if the parents really wanted the kids, they would do their all to pass (it's not like the process would be difficult, as no one is a prefect parent. But at least common sense, basic knowledge and show that you CARE). If you do not pass after all this, then you'd just make your kid's life miserable.
As for ensuring that your parents are licensed, they should present the paper for when you get a passport, apply you to schools, get you a credit card or things like that. This way you'll ensure most parents are licensed.
As for illegally born kids, when the parents are caught, they should first pay a fine, (this will promote people to gte licensed first) and after that all the process I explained before (of examination and exams), they go on with their lives.
Plus, I think the license should be free, or at least the cost should depend on how much you earn, so that poor people that are still capable of raising kids should be allowed.
In the end, the ones who do not get the license are those who didn't care enough, ergo, those who won't care about their kids.
I believe something like this would be wonderful, as it would help in the prevention of abused or neglected kids, because, more often than not, these cases are discovered too late, when the damage has already been done.
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.
"Oh, so it seems you're pregnant. You have to register yourself using this website -or- call this number. If you don't follow the procedure, you will be fined on your tax returns so do think of doing it".
"So it seems that you failed the test but tried in good faith. You can avoid the fines by scheduling a second try on the exam within the next 6 months. Remember, all you need to study is in _this_ booklet. Moreover, we offer free parenting classes for young parents that failed the test. Would you like to register with one of our counselors?"
"You've failed to register for a take back of your test and had to pay the parenting fine. Remember, for the second year the fine will double. Make sure to register for a take back of the test".
"So, you've failed the test several times. We'd like you to be able to meet two of our agents. They can go to your place. Yes, it's mandatory to avoid the fines."
"Well Mrs. [...] we think you would benefit from a follow up with your psychiatrist. Do you need help arranging that?"
etc. etc.
Just pass an add on TV starting the year before it start: "Planning a pregnancy, from [that date] forward, a mandatory check up with a doctor and written test will be necessary. Ask your doctor about [...] or visit [...].gov. A message from [...]".
GregTom2 Hm, yeah, I could see that. I wonder if something like that ever did become reality, how much it would affect crime rate and poverty
Such an excellent series. I hope it doesn't end anytime soon!
Blood is thicker than water is literally a quote about how battle combatants have a stronger bond than family.
I've always thought that not any person should become a parent, and it should be regulated by somebody. I'm glad there is a philosopher who agrees with me.
"You have no obligation to your parents..."
My daughter's first words in the morning and last words at night.
Did John really dry his socks with a frying pan? lmao
Mish. Michelle Or John lol
edited thanks
apparently...Good to know! ;)
A big problem with the parenting license is that it has such heavy and obvious room for abuse, there are eugenics arguments only a slippery slope down from there
I really hate making up names for this kind of stuff - That's not even considering the possibility that the number of children you could have could be limited by the government as well
+Kathryn Mercier
Eugenics is a magic word that scares people so just drop that word anytime to win.
And what do you mean by that Kathryn...?
You know that slippery slope is a logical fallacy, right? It's not a valid philosophical argument-it uses fear to avoid actually entertaining an idea by asserting that it could or must lead to some bad extreme. Just because a license for parenting is being proposed doesn't mean that the requirements for such a license have to be based on class, race, whatever. It could be based on the actual ability to raise a child in a healthy environment (expendable income of the parents, mental health of the parents, sanitation of the home, etc).
James Miller So I just did a quick check and Wikipedia has a whole section of the "Slippery Slope" entitled Non-fallacious usage. I know Wikipedia isn't an awesome source 100% of the time, but it will have to do until I can read the book The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope by Eugene Volokh - so it appears The Slippery Slope can be used in a non-fallacious manner
I think this was the best episode so far... it was valuable because I hadn't really scrutinized my beliefs in this area before (aside from the licensing thing), and I don't think I'm alone. Most adults can't explain reasons why they behave in certain ways towards their parents and just think there's no other option.
Lol, who else wouldn't have been born if they had an enforced parenting license law? XD
Yea, but it's not necessarily a bad thing...
@@queenbedamnedsheiba says the home girl who got to be born
@@Shrugboatt I've argued against the wisdom of that
@@queenbedamnedsheiba I've noticed that people who are okay with others not living or ironically say "yeah maybe I shouldn't have been born" actually enjoy being alive quite a bit, as they should. Living is awesome.
@@Shrugboatt uhum, if you are healthy born and preferably "1st worlder". (which i am, too by the way). I've seen people around whose life is pure suffering. because of child abuse, alcholol abuse, complete lack of love, or other more objective measures; such as lethal illnesses that weck havoc on you till you die. (if you happen to be bor with one). I still value life per se, i still think some people's lives are hell due to their genetical code, or due to lack of basic education or any kind of decent living conditions provided by parents. moreover i sense that majority of people have kids because they wont to "fullfill something" in their life and not let tchem live freely and experience life. and then (especially and primarly) when they have bad realtionship themselves they make this disgusting family constelation of "loving son or daughter more than actual spouse".. i've seen so many Times.. i wished only certain and worhty of it people would be fertile(and i don't mean myself, i dont care if i am cause i dont plan on having kids, its a personal choice, it doesnt mean i hate them or anything, theyre usualy a victim of the whole game).. it would reduce so much suffering in this world
I like the conditional view of family obligations. In my family I have adopted cousins who were abused before being adopted and they owe their abusive 'parents' nothing and if your parents are good to you, your going to want to 'repay' the debt even if it doesn't really exist. I'm no philosopher it just made sense to me.
I would love to say I support a parenting license, but the problem, as always, is people. It will definitely be used to ensure only competent parents can get a license, but their definition of competent parent isn't the same as the one most of you probably thought of. It's a really easy method to eliminate groups you happen to dislike. Simply deny them the ability to reproduce.
Also, the only way to enforce such a system is to stop reproduction from being possible until a license is obtained. Forced sterility programs are... Uncomfortable...
I wish cc would dive into their comments and select the ones that best explain or discuss. The critiques as well that highlight specific and general principles in the networks of these philosophies.
I strongly agree with a conditional view of family obligations. By all means, if your parents poured love and self-sacrifice into raising you, give them the respect they deserve, but no one deserves respect simply for being a parent. And in fact, there are some parents who are horrible to their children, and in those cases, sometimes it's better to cut them out of your life entirely.
You should never feel obligated or indebted to a parent who neglects or abuses you.
However, if your parent did great by you, and sacrificed a lot for you, then yes, I feel you are selfish if you simply walk away and don't ever try to give anything back. Sure, your parents may not feel you owe them anything, but I think you should feel a desire to repay their kindness.
But, all that said, I don't feel like that obligation has anything special simply because of blood. If someone who isn't actually related to you made the same sort of sacrifices for you, you should feel equally obligated to repay their kindness.
Also, I've seen enough horrible parents to think a parental license, as controversial as it may be, might not be such a terrible idea. Of course, it could easily be abused by a fascist government, so there's that... I could imagine Trump decreeing that no one who voted against him could breed.
Florence MacKenna I agree with your sentiment about the conditional view of obligations. I'm glad you can see how a parenting liscense would be bad as well, though you're only? looking at it from that perspective- it could also be used against the disabled, gay people, trans people, POCs or people who worship alternative religions, like those who worship pagan gods or other religions other than say.... Christianity.
In an ideal world, though? I'd love it.
Tabby Feral That's essentially what I meant by it being abused by a fascist government. To keep "undesirables" from reproducing. A fascist government could simply set the requirements of such a test in a way that would automatically disqualify any people they don't like.
friendship do keeps tabs and stuff.... of course it works with love as well but when it requires money into the equation then the equation breaks......
but for family it is always unconditional regardless of money or whatever... this only includes ur immediate family though~~
Im asexual, i brought myself into this world, and only i can take myself out.
unemployedbean like a bacteria? if so then you do have a sibling that will be your only direct family.
sirBrouwer all of my siblings are clones of myself
or are you clone of them?
If you and one of your siblings are together somewhere and you're clones, does this mean you're beside yourself?
same
I was always good to my parents. Even though I lived 2000 miles away from them due to the military. I visited every year and took them anywhere they wanted to go. I took care f my father when he was dying and helped care for my elderly mother as well. She is still living. I did those things because they were my parents and I loved them. NOT because I "owed" them. I'm a firm believer that the only thing a grown child owes theory parents is respect
I'm an Indian and afaik, in Asia, but in India, China, Japan, kids are supposed to take care of their aging parents as they grow old. It is not an obligation, but a matter of pride. That limits your mobility to undertaking job/business opportunities at far places of the world, but being with parents is totally worth it, as today the internet is connecting the world better than before.
The root of this culture is the lack of proper insurances and medical benefits in these countries. Male children especially take care of both parents, stay with them and pay their debt to their parents in terms of their health and parents are happy to see their children progress. If there's just one daughter, then her husband and herself will take care of her parents.
greatidea11 see in the US it somehow got twisted. The system was supposed to be parents care for you, u get married, have kids and ur parents care for the kids, while you care for them and so on and so forth but somewhere along the line we started making it a matter of "national pride" to be out of ur parents house at 18 instead of when people would actually be ready and mature to live a "real" life. It's pretty shitty
*Compassion* has driven many society to become more egalitarian, trying to reach a positive sum game.
With this in mind I think that taking care of your parents regardless of the quality of their education, expect cases of neglect or abuse, is a sign of a society becoming more compassionate, encouraging individuals to strive for a less egotistical behavior.
Dude, this episode gave me a life-lesson... Thanks a lot ^_^
My philosophy includes an important circles of care component. The circles of care concept recognizes that you care most about those in the tightest relationships with you and least about slugs on the planet Zarquon. But my philosophy recognizes this and states that it makes sense and you needn't change that fact. But it also says that there is a balance to be struck and benefits to be had by conciously training yourself to instinctively care for the wider circles. All of them, even the one that includes the slugs of Zarquon.
If you want to create a life
You've got to be qualified
Now you need to earn it.
If you want to propagate
First prove you can educate
Parental Procreation Permit
even before this video i completely agreed with the license and the friendship view, even had that license thought before
I’LL HAVE YOU KNOW MY PARENTS REALLY DID ENJOY MY MACARONI ART!!!
Parenting styles are very different so it'd be difficult to have one test to take. However, there could be funded programs for expected parents with materials for them to read and review and an area to gain knowledge and ask questions.
You don't owe anything to your abusers.
In a place like India where parenting is in such a bade shape, I have thought about the whole issue in the last two years. I am not surprised, considering the smart people behind this crash course, that all the thoughts talked about in this video and my thoughts overlap exactly, including the thought bubble. It is such an amazing feeling to ultimately find out that we are not alone in our thoughts.
I like the idea of a parenting license in theory; you have to show that you are competent and willing to raise a child in order to pass and obtain said license. In theory, this would prevent children from being raised by neglectful or incompetent parents, which is good. The problem that I have, though, is that this could lead to discrimination towards certain parents. What about single parents? A group of parents, rather than two? Same gender parents? And what about parents that accidentally conceive? Would they have to apply for a license and be approved so they could keep their child? There are a lot of logistics that would have to get hammered out before I could totally endorse the idea, but I do think it has merit.
I totally agree. However, laws like these make discrimination a possibility in a way that it currently is not.
What a nice anecdote that of John !
I totally agree with that philosophy 👍🏻
Mohammed same
Whoa, I was just talking with my sisters about this over the holidays. Not sure about the parenting license thing, but the discussion over obligations and family social contracts is really interesting.
Now would be a good time to show this video to my parents.
Then again maybe I don't have to.
Wish this episode would have covered obligations to parents under different ideologies (e.g. Under Confucianism), and how in developing countries children are considered one's retirement plan where there is no state wellfair for the elderly.
Also, part of the decision to have kids can be influenced by a desire to carry on a bloodline, hold certain positions of power or certain family assets, or to propagate a certain ideology that the family holds.
I'm pretty split on the license thing. On one hand, yeah, having a screaming to prevent shitty parents sounds amazing. On the other hand, there is too much opportunity for discrimination, which already happens with adoption. Then there is the big problem of bodily autonomy. Especially if you are pro-choice; assuming people have the right to end a pregnancy because it's their body, it also stands that people have the right to get and stay pregnant.
I believe that people must do courses of how to be a responsible parent, what important is to have a healthy family for the kids, and how important is family for society, but I do not consider necessary to have a license.
"Parent License" sounds like eugenics to me, tbh.
I would love to thank you and John and all of your team for helping make me a better thinker and a better person!
If you can't incur an obligation simply by being born, why are we expected to abide by the laws of a society we didn't choose to be born into?
Josh Wi I think it's related to how a baby's brain is much less developed than an adult's. In fact, the brain is only fully developed at 25! So a kid plain lacks the ability to make legal and moral choices on the same level as an adult, who can, if their economy/health allows it, move to another country to avoid laws.
Exactly, if a person can't be a moral agent because their brain is undeveloped, why do we expect them to uphold any contract they can neither comprehend nor legally and morally be contracted to (the laws of society for example)?
I fully understand that it would be useless to have laws which a person under the age of 25 doesn't need to abide by - I just think it's weird to incur some obligations at birth and not others.
Josh Wi Well, in my country children bellow the age of 15 can't be punished by the law, it's their parents who pay for their crimes. Meaning they aren't forced to adhere to laws they can't understand. So I can't really relate to your view there.
Maja N Technically speaking, while you're a member of a country from birth, you aren't expected to fully abide by the laws of their government until you are of an age to begin making decisions. In most countries, minors are prosecuted in a different way and it really only applies to the major laws: those required to keep basic civility. Given that, you technically only have to abide by laws once you are old enough to have the option to leave the country. This is akin to the college student living at home for free; it's a separate contract made with full consent.
This is, generally speaking, why societies attempt to reflect the desires of their populace. Children cannot be expected to buy in to the social contract and instead have to be enticed into playing along or, in the case of society failing to do so, they become deviants. (people who do not follow the principles of their governing body) Because of this a society slowly changes over time (sometimes maddeningly slowly) to account for changes in the desires of its people. A society that does not change fast enough or that refuses to change (usually dictatorships) will almost inevitably fall apart.
who the hell could vote down to such an unbiased video in ethics?
Oh God, I feel so guilty that I haven't called my mum in weeks.
Stop philosophising me, Hank
I think it's kind of like a Kantian-esque control conditon - what society holistically demands vs. what you individually desire. I think the former can be expressed in terms of the latter, so I think it can be solved, and the solution is context dependent, hinging on what the individual wants more.
6:33 wine drinking couple..... we meet again.
I really liked this episode. It's weird I think the same as the philosophers reviewd in the video. I think many people are not in a good position to have a family, or to bare with children when they can't deal with their own problems. But a test to be a parent doesn't exist. That is why it's difficult to know when children have problems at home, or even young adults.
I think we should have a frienship relationship towards our parents as we grow and we don't owe them anything. They did bring us to the world because of their own choice and we didn't choose to be born. If we treat our parents well or they treat us well it should be because of kindness and frienship. If love begins to be an obligation then it's not love.
90% of potential parents would fail miserably at the test. But it's a great idea because people would finally start realizing how messed up society really is, and thus refuse to bring anymore children into this disaster.
When you give money to a beggar, it may not because you feel pity for them, maybe just because you have money and they're not so you give out to comfort your soul; and when you do that, you feel great inside (so your action benefits you first, then to the beggar). You don't expect the beggar to give you back anything. However, in all case, the beggar, morally, should takes some action, at least remembers you as their savior as your action benefits him/her as well. Then, both you and the beggar, are bounded to rules: morally rules. You VOLUNTARILY donate and the beggar remember VOLUNTARILY. That what makes this world wonderful. The same thing happens to parents and children. Parents (choose to have children and that action benefit them first, then to the children) raise the children and shouldn't expect them to do anything, but children should know by themselves that pay back parents is a good thing to do because their action benefits you.
Please stop talking about contract, duty or responsibility, think about volunteering instead. Say thanks and pay back to anyone who help you, regard their purposes.
If you don't understand then it's my fault, my English is not good. Thank for reading - K.N
Hank, are you my father?
Search your inner feelings.
This being the internet, be prepared for "I'll be your daddy" jokes. You really queued up the trolls on that one.
quantumperception Thank you for warning me.
100% on board with parent licensing. Have been for years.
I've always told my children, you don't belong to me, I belong to you.
Thank you so much! You've given me so many new ways to Think about... well... Everything.
Yes please! we need parenting licenses
Could these videos have the pillar of philosophy in the title? It would really help if I knew if the video was metaphysics or epistemology before I started watching it. It makes studying easier.
Parental Licenses would be good on paper, but they would quickly get bogged down in politics and bureaucracy. With that said its a bad idea over all.
I LOVE the new approach and topics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Love the idea of certification in order to have children, especially considering my childhood 😓
Big fan of Social Darwinism?
I like Hugh. I've had that thought many times. And while it seems ridiculous in the current social context, I can easily see such a law being implemented in a slightly more competitive future. This sort of thing is already carried out in some way or another via benefits or penalties based on the number of children you have. Some countries do it to increase or decrease population growth
What are chom choms? It's been so long since Hank told me and I can't remember?
I'm kidding ftw
I’ve been saying that parents should be licensed, for like decades now. And that there is absolutely no obligation to them whatsoever, it was their decision, not yours. Yet there is a great deal of self value in the acceptance and love for them. Whatever their parenting skills were or weren’t. Love for them is quite accurately love for your self. And this doesn’t mean you should follow their steps or their will...
Had 9 siblings so well.. that’s that
My parents told me straight up that they had me so that I can provide for them when they're retired...
Thank you