Matthew Clayton – författare

Issues concerning the upbringing of children are among the most contested in modern political debate. How should childrearing rights and resources be distributed between families? To what extent are parents morally permitted to shape the beliefs and desires of their children? At what age should children acquire adult rights, such as the right to vote? Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing sets out a liberal conception of political morality that supports aset of answers to these questions which many liberals have been reluctant to accept.The central argument is that the ideals of justice and individual autonomy place significant constraints on both governments and parents. Clayton insists that while their interests should count directly in allocating childrearing rights, parents should exercise their rights in accordance with these liberal ideals. He argues that we owe our children a childhood that develops their sense of justice, but in which further attempts to enrol them into particular religious practices, for instance, areillegitimate. Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing is a work of applied political philosophy that will be of interest to students of political theory, the philosophy of education, and social and public policy.

Independence for Children presents an alternative conception of parenting to those that have dominated our thinking about children and the family to date. It offers an elaboration and defence of anti-perfectionist parenting. The central argument of this book is that, as they develop, children become entitled to adopt and pursue their own conceptions of religion and human well-being. As young children, they are entitled to an upbringing that is informed by ideals and reasons they can later accept in the light of the religious or ethical values they go on to hold as adults. In short, parents and others owe children an upbringing from which they are not alienated later in life. Parental anti-perfectionism suggests that parents should introduce their children to the various and sometimes competing views concerning our place in the universe and human flourishing and raise them to be respectful of the diversity of lifestyles within society. But Matthew Clayton argues that parents have no right to steer their children towards particular religious doctrines or conceptions of human flourishing, and that religious schools ought to be phased out. This book addresses several questions in the philosophy of upbringing, such as how we ought to understand the interests of children, the moral claims of parents, and what constitutes a valuable family life. Clayton finishes by briefly exploring the implications of anti-perfectionist morality for how parents ought to approach issues concerning work, consumption, gender, and food.

Independence for Children presents an alternative conception of parenting to those that have dominated our thinking about children and the family to date. It offers an elaboration and defence of anti-perfectionist parenting. The central argument of this book is that, as they develop, children become entitled to adopt and pursue their own conceptions of religion and human well-being. As young children, they are entitled to an upbringing that is informed by ideals and reasons they can later accept in the light of the religious or ethical values they go on to hold as adults. In short, parents and others owe children an upbringing from which they are not alienated later in life. Parental anti-perfectionism suggests that parents should introduce their children to the various and sometimes competing views concerning our place in the universe and human flourishing and raise them to be respectful of the diversity of lifestyles within society. But Matthew Clayton argues that parents have no right to steer their children towards particular religious doctrines or conceptions of human flourishing, and that religious schools ought to be phased out. This book addresses several questions in the philosophy of upbringing, such as how we ought to understand the interests of children, the moral claims of parents, and what constitutes a valuable family life. Clayton finishes by briefly exploring the implications of anti-perfectionist morality for how parents ought to approach issues concerning work, consumption, gender, and food.

Independence for Children presents an alternative conception of parenting to those that have dominated our thinking about children and the family to date. It offers an elaboration and defence of anti-perfectionist parenting. The central argument of this book is that, as they develop, children become entitled to adopt and pursue their own conceptions of religion and human well-being. As young children, they are entitled to an upbringing that is informed by ideals and reasons they can later accept in the light of the religious or ethical values they go on to hold as adults. In short, parents and others owe children an upbringing from which they are not alienated later in life. Parental anti-perfectionism suggests that parents should introduce their children to the various and sometimes competing views concerning our place in the universe and human flourishing and raise them to be respectful of the diversity of lifestyles within society. But Matthew Clayton argues that parents have no right to steer their children towards particular religious doctrines or conceptions of human flourishing, and that religious schools ought to be phased out. This book addresses several questions in the philosophy of upbringing, such as how we ought to understand the interests of children, the moral claims of parents, and what constitutes a valuable family life. Clayton finishes by briefly exploring the implications of anti-perfectionist morality for how parents ought to approach issues concerning work, consumption, gender, and food.

Should religious schools be an option? Should they receive public funding? Are they bad for community cohesion? What should we make of the charge that they indoctrinate? How should they be regulated? People disagree on the answers to these questions. Some maintain that religious schools should not be permitted. If parents want to raise their children in a particular faith at home, then that is up to them, but schools should not be involved. Others think it obvious that parents should be free to send their children to religious schools. Any government that ruled that out would be violating parents' right to religious freedom, or their right to raise their children according to their own beliefs. In order to make progress on these issues, we need a way of thinking about them that enables us to understand more clearly what is at stake. This book provides a framework that identifies the different kinds of normative considerations that are in play and provides the basis for understanding why people disagree about religious schools. It uses a method that involves moving from the relevant normative considerations--especially the child's potential to acquire personal autonomy and to develop a capacity and disposition to treat others as equals--to specific policy proposals for governing religious schools in England today, taking into account the legal and political constraints on policy options and the likely unintended consequences of reforms.A unique feature of the book is that its three authors have somewhat different perspectives on the implications of the normative framework they each endorse, which they draw out in separate chapters. Despite reaching different conclusions on some philosophical issues concerning religious schools, the framework and method they share enables them to converge on a regulatory framework that forbids directive teaching aimed at imparting religious beliefs in publicy-funded religious schools, and that makes the charitable status of private religious schools conditional on avoiding this kind of teaching.

Should religious schools be an option? Should they receive public funding? Are they bad for community cohesion? What should we make of the charge that they indoctrinate? How should they be regulated? People disagree on the answers to these questions. Some maintain that religious schools should not be permitted. If parents want to raise their children in a particular faith at home, then that is up to them, but schools should not be involved. Others think it obvious that parents should be free to send their children to religious schools. Any government that ruled that out would be violating parents' right to religious freedom, or their right to raise their children according to their own beliefs. In order to make progress on these issues, we need a way of thinking about them that enables us to understand more clearly what is at stake. This book provides a framework that identifies the different kinds of normative considerations that are in play and provides the basis for understanding why people disagree about religious schools. It uses a method that involves moving from the relevant normative considerations--especially the child's potential to acquire personal autonomy and to develop a capacity and disposition to treat others as equals--to specific policy proposals for governing religious schools in England today, taking into account the legal and political constraints on policy options and the likely unintended consequences of reforms.A unique feature of the book is that its three authors have somewhat different perspectives on the implications of the normative framework they each endorse, which they draw out in separate chapters. Despite reaching different conclusions on some philosophical issues concerning religious schools, the framework and method they share enables them to converge on a regulatory framework that forbids directive teaching aimed at imparting religious beliefs in publicy-funded religious schools, and that makes the charitable status of private religious schools conditional on avoiding this kind of teaching.

Should religious schools be an option? Should they receive public funding? Are they bad for community cohesion? What should we make of the charge that they indoctrinate? How should they be regulated? People disagree on the answers to these questions. Some maintain that religious schools should not be permitted. If parents want to raise their children in a particular faith at home, then that is up to them, but schools should not be involved. Others think it obvious that parents should be free to send their children to religious schools. Any government that ruled that out would be violating parents' right to religious freedom, or their right to raise their children according to their own beliefs. In order to make progress on these issues, we need a way of thinking about them that enables us to understand more clearly what is at stake. This book provides a framework that identifies the different kinds of normative considerations that are in play and provides the basis for understanding why people disagree about religious schools. It uses a method that involves moving from the relevant normative considerations--especially the child's potential to acquire personal autonomy and to develop a capacity and disposition to treat others as equals--to specific policy proposals for governing religious schools in England today, taking into account the legal and political constraints on policy options and the likely unintended consequences of reforms. A unique feature of the book is that its three authors have somewhat different perspectives on the implications of the normative framework they each endorse, which they draw out in separate chapters. Despite reaching different conclusions on some philosophical issues concerning religious schools, the framework and method they share enables them to converge on a regulatory framework that forbids directive teaching aimed at imparting religious beliefs in publicy-funded religious schools, and that makes the charitable status of private religious schools conditional on avoiding this kind of teaching.

Should religious schools be an option? Should they receive public funding? Are they bad for community cohesion? What should we make of the charge that they indoctrinate? How should they be regulated? People disagree on the answers to these questions. Some maintain that religious schools should not be permitted. If parents want to raise their children in a particular faith at home, then that is up to them, but schools should not be involved. Others think it obvious that parents should be free to send their children to religious schools. Any government that ruled that out would be violating parents' right to religious freedom, or their right to raise their children according to their own beliefs. In order to make progress on these issues, we need a way of thinking about them that enables us to understand more clearly what is at stake. This book provides a framework that identifies the different kinds of normative considerations that are in play and provides the basis for understanding why people disagree about religious schools. It uses a method that involves moving from the relevant normative considerations--especially the child's potential to acquire personal autonomy and to develop a capacity and disposition to treat others as equals--to specific policy proposals for governing religious schools in England today, taking into account the legal and political constraints on policy options and the likely unintended consequences of reforms. A unique feature of the book is that its three authors have somewhat different perspectives on the implications of the normative framework they each endorse, which they draw out in separate chapters. Despite reaching different conclusions on some philosophical issues concerning religious schools, the framework and method they share enables them to converge on a regulatory framework that forbids directive teaching aimed at imparting religious beliefs in publicy-funded religious schools, and that makes the charitable status of private religious schools conditional on avoiding this kind of teaching.

Issues concerning the upbringing of children are among the most contested in modern political debate. How should childrearing rights and resources be distributed between families? To what extent are parents morally permitted to shape the beliefs and desires of their children? At what age should children acquire adult rights, such as the right to vote? Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing sets out a liberal conception of political morality that supports a set of answers to these questions which many liberals have been reluctant to accept. The central argument is that the ideals of justice and individual autonomy place significant constraints on both governments and parents. Clayton insists that while their interests should count directly in allocating childrearing rights, parents should exercise their rights in accordance with these liberal ideals. He argues that we owe our children a childhood that develops their sense of justice, but in which further attempts to enrol them into particular religious practices, for instance, are illegitimate. Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing is a work of applied political philosophy that will be of interest to students of political theory, the philosophy of education, and social and public policy.

This reader brings together classic and contemporary contributions to debates about social justice. A collection of classic and contemporary contributions to debates about social justice. Includes classic discussions of justice by Locke and Hume. Provides broad coverage of contemporary discussions, including theoretical pieces by John Rawls, Robert Nozick and Ronald Dworkin. Contains papers that apply theories of justice to concrete issues, such as gender and the family, the market, world poverty, cultural rights, and future generations. Philosophically challenging yet accessible to students.