I will proceed in this section by examining arguments laid out by Loren Lomasky who agrees with Vallier that state imposed public schooling is politically impermissible. I use Lomasky as a close substitute for Vallier because he is more explicit about the relation- ship between autonomy and wide parental discretion over children’s educational choices. More importantly, his theory is predicated on respecting the personal values of parents, an idea that roughly mirrors Vallier’s insistence on the state’s respect for parents’ integrity reasons. I hope to show that the arguments I use against Lomasky’s view apply in a similar way to Vallier. Ultimately, I wish to show that Lomasky (and by proxy Vallier) is wrong to think that complete parental control over childrens education does not compromise chil- dren’s autonomy.
Loren Lomasky, like Vallier, believes that parents have rights against state interfer- ence in the education of their children and thus shares Vallier’s views on the permissibility of public schooling. He is more explicit, however, about the connection between childrens independence and parental authority.17 Lomasky is quite adamant that children are to be considered as independent beings and so possess rights of their own that cannot be violated by anyone, including parents.18 These rights, however, are not mostly comprised of neg- ative protections, including basic liberties of freedom of conscience and association, for example, as are adult rights; rather, they mainly include welfare rights, for example, rights to a certain level of safety and subsistence.19 That children have rights against others to
provide them with the basic necessities of life, Lomasky believes, is grounded in the claim
17Lomasky. Person, Rights, and the Moral Community, Chapter 7.
18Ibid p. 172
that they will one day be ”independent project pursuers”. An independent project pursuer is one who ”lives a life structured by abiding commitments that determine what will count as motivation toward action for that person”.20 Independent project pursuers develop deep commitments to particular aims and goals and seek to accomplish these through intentional action. Moreover, a person’s projects ”provide him with a personalintimately personalstan- dard of value to choose his actions by”. His central and enduring ends provide him reasons for action that are recognized as his own in the sense that ”no one who is uncommitted to those ends will share the reasons for actions that he possesses.”21For Lomasky, individuals’
commitment to certain values, beliefs, ways of life, relationships and principles provides fertile ground for a conception of basic rights, which include the familiar basic liberties espoused in liberalism.22
Lomasky believes that in order for parents to provide for the well-being of their children, thus honoring children’s rights as prospective project pursuers, parents themselves must have rights against the state’s interference in their child rearing practices.23 Parents
can successfully satisfy the needs of their children only if they are not subject to constant interference (or the threat of such) by the state. The exception to this principle occurs in two cases: either in the case of extreme abuse of children by their parents or when parents, for some reason or other, are unable to provide their children with basic necessities owed to them by right. Under these circumstances the state may properly step in and aid (or rescue) children in a situation that would ostensibly have a tremendously negative impact on their ability to form and pursue projects in the future. While this caveat means that parents
20Ibid. p. 42.
21Ibid p. 28.
22Ibid p. 52.
have less than complete authority over their children, as it turns out, Lomasky believes that a vast majority of child-rearing practices clear this hurdle and so are not to be subject to intrusion by the government.24 Lomasky’s view is conservative in this sense; unless a family’s manner of raising a child is designed and intended to indoctrinate her or induce servility through the use of physically and psychologically abusive methods, the state has no standing to try to shape the attitudes, values or beliefs of the child for any purpose.25 The state’s hands with regard to the upbringing of children are, for the most part, tied. It is not allowed to impress its power on families for the sake of some greater good or act paternalistically toward children even on their behalf by compelling parents to abide by policies aimed at offering them the best possible upbringing.26
Based on the premise that parental rights of noninterference against the state are predicated on the ability of parents to satisfy their children’s welfare rights, Lomasky views compulsory public schooling as a severe violation of parental rights in much the same way as Vallier.27 Lomasky accepts that education of some sort is a vital need for children
to enable them to pursue their own projects in the future. However, as long as parents seek to educate their children in ways that do not amount to forcing their children to be mindless followers or servants, Lomasky contends that the state must not intrude upon parents’ preferred manner of educating their children. However, we may ask: does not this degree of parental control over children’s education compromise children’s autonomy?
24Ibid pp. 173-174.
25Ibid p. 184.
26Ibid pp. 173-174.