Principles - do they go out of the window when we become parents?

[Emphaticmaybe]

Just wondering how far parents will compromise to ensure their children's welfare and happiness even at the expense of often long held principles.

As a socialist I've encountered this in the past with the dilemma of a very unhappy ASD child in a state school. I would have never even considered private if not for his deep unhappiness at the time. I was surprised at myself but my principles seemed ridiculous in the face of his suffering, (he did in fact return to the state system after HE.)

There are lots of situations as parents where we have to make difficult choices that are in conflict with our values: the atheist and church schools, Christians and private schools, vaccinations, the environment etc.

The recent case of parents covering for their child after he had murdered his girlfriend is the extreme but many parents would admit to not informing the police over minor infringements their children may have committed.

So what are your experiences and is it even reasonable to expect parents to stick to their principles?

I guess principles depend on circumstances to some extent and change over time. May be a case of older and wiser, and youthful principles were unrealistic.

So no real answer - it depends on the situation.

YABU to think that principles "go out the window"

People don't ignore their previous principles, they just reassess them.

It would be far more foolish to stick to a "principle" that you had decided on in the past when you now have more information and a better understanding of the situation.

I am a long standing socialist etc, but if i could afford it i would pay for private speech therapy.

I get involved politically and push things forward in my job, for my clients, but we are constrained, so i think that desperate times can call for desperate measures.

Luckily we had educated Philanthropists, so life improved for the working classes. We still need people to rise through the ranks and some principles have to be given up to do this.

Things like, not exploiting others, have to stick, but some that are not against a person can go by the wayside.

I think part of being a parent is realising that your principles may not lead to the outcome which is best for your child and realising sometimes you have to look beyond your own dislike of private education (for example) and to what the child needs.

I think I've become more principled since having my children.

But, as Trills said, I have also reassessed principles I held before becoming a parent.

I didn't really have any principles when I was younger

Think we are quite principled but DW and I have rather different backgrounds so our principles are not always the same. Think DW is definitely a more competitive parent than I am but we are grounded in state education for children and would never find religion, move to get into best schools etc.., but are very good at achieving the maximum for our children out of what we have to work with

OP, I guess it deoends on how much the ethical issue directly affects your child. We're socialists and, on principle, won't have anything to do with Mrudoch - the Sun, NofW, sky etc so DS, although young now, will grow up without Sky sports, whatever his friends have at home, because it will be a cold day in hell before we subscribe to it, and we're happy to explain to him why.

We have good primary schools round here so will be happy to use state education but the secondary schools are not so good so DH and I are still discussing whether we would consider the local private school for secondary education as he'd stay in the same school from 11 to 18, not being moved from middle to upper school at 14. Because that directly impacts on our son and his future, it would be foolish to just say "ah, we have priniciples" unless, for example, we were happy to look at movingto a different area with a better state secondary school, which we're not. We wouldn't put our principles over the welfare of our child, which is what we'd do by saying "no, we must education you in the state sector on principle, now go to the crap state school rathe than the significantly better private school" although obviously our decision is much less clear cut than that.

Children should never be made to uphold their parents principles, parents have a duty to do what is best for their child, whether or no that agrees with their own personal opinions.

I think principles can change when we become parents.

On principle, I don't believe in private healthcare. It is utterly wrong that good quality healthcare is not accessible to everyone within a reasonable time frame. But when someone in my family needed better healthcare than they were getting on the NHS, my principle on the subject went straight down the toilet. I believe in looking after my family far more than I believe in any socialist ideals that don't work anyway.

It's not something I've ever had to do, maybe just having the one child and not having to worry about money, e.g. not having to compromise food principles, help a bit towards that?

Emphaticmaybe

Just wondering how far parents will compromise to ensure their children's welfare and happiness even at the expense of often long held principles.

As a socialist I've encountered this in the past with the dilemma of a very unhappy ASD child in a state school. I would have never even considered private if not for his deep unhappiness at the time. I was surprised at myself but my principles seemed ridiculous in the face of his suffering, (he did in fact return to the state system after HE.)

I think that any ideology which clashes, fundamentally, with human nature is bound to fail. Socialism is an excellent example. The principle of an everyone-attends state school system sounds fine until you run in to the reality, which is that it fails the children at the top and bottom end. So parents who are socialists and whose children struggle in the state system find that they have to discard their principles in order to do what is biologically natural (and right) which is to do the best for their kids. See Diane Abbott for an example.

In politics "doing a U-turn" is seen as a bad thing.

If you are a scientist (or you just think about things scientifically) when new evidence comes to light that means your previous belief was wrong, "doing a U-turn" is exactly what you should do.

If circumstances change, or you learn more about something, then changing your position is often the right thing to do, because your previous position was based on incorrect assumptions or incomplete information.

I think having children is often the point in life where you realise that your principles were based on a very partial and incomplete view of the world.

It's a lot easier to make a decision to always/never do X, when it has no connection to your actual life, or when only you personally have to live with the consequences - but when your choices have an impact on another person, whose welfare is in your hands, you have to weigh up a whole new set of impacts which you may have never thought through before.

Birdsgottafly - I am a firm supporter of the NHS but when DC 1 was very ill I would have paid anything to get the help he needed - there just wasn't anything outside the NHS. I am as guilty as the next parent when it comes to my child's suffering.

What I was thinking about with this post is that as the majority of the planet will at some point be parents it has to be important to not use parenthood as a reason to discard principles - otherwise that's a lot of people only acting in self interest. The welfare of all still remains important whether we are parents or not. Our children, no matter what privileges we wrangle for them will still have to be part of the larger society which is becoming increasingly polarised and as a result more and more fragile, ( thinking about last year's riots.)

Oh, I don't think it's so much about abandoning principles as having a clash of principles. The principle of "I don't approve of private education" vs the principle of "I don't want my child to spend the next seven years having the shit kicked out of him," for example.

When you're a parent you have responsibility for the life of another human being, and while you may be prepared to make sacrifices on your own behalf, it's much more morally difficult to expect your child to make sacrifices on your behalf.

I think having children is often the point in life where you realise that your principles were based on a very partial and incomplete view of the world Totally agree with this!

I think when you have children, your moral obligation to them is bigger than your moral obligation to society.

Yes we have to hold on to principles, because we want a nice world for our families to live in. But I think we are failing as parents if we don't do our best to meet the needs of our children. If that means that we have to give our children a leg up that other children don't have, then so be it.

flatpackmaster - I agree I am in conflict with what seems biologically natural i.e maintaining my child's welfare and what I feel to be best for society as a whole.

I've recently read a book where the mother in it is considering a private organ donation to save her daughter's life (without looking deeply enough to see that the organs come from murdered homeless people). An extreme example of putting your child's welfare first.
So no, I don't think it is ok to sacrifice all principle when you become a parent.

It's not best for society though if individual needs aren't met. It doesn't make it any better for someone suffering if there is another extra person suffering too.

Igggi, that book sounds interesting. I think it's different when someone else is harmed as a result of a parent putting their child first. Even in a situation a lot less extreme than a homeless person being murdered, any type of suffering beng inflicted on someone else as a result of a parent putting their child first I'd wrong. No one else is harmed by an individual choosing not to use the NHS or state schooling.

It's not necessarily a clash though. It's easy to agree that everyone should have equal access to healthcare, and so we vote or take action to try to make that happen.

And we can say that private healthcare shouldn't exist because it goes against that pronciple.

But, at the same time, private healthcare does exist. Choosing not to make use of it is not going to make it go away, because it is there now, and frankly not struggling to continue. But choosing to use it will make a positive difference to your child's life.

We're in favour of equal access to healthcare because it will help children and other vulnerable people - leaving your child to suffer when you could help them is not a good way of working towards that aim.

But you could argue outraged that indirectly others are harmed as the result of private ed and health care.

only people who never think, never change their mind...

I was never opposed to private schools on principle though. If they raise the bar for eduction, good! Nobody is harmed by it, if anything, it makes State schools feel they have to try harder (I do think teachers should be paid more, and generally that state schools should have more money.). If people think private schools are "unfair" because they are better, the solution is to make State schools just as good IMO, not to abolish the better schools! By sending my children private, the Gvt. can use the £5000 a year they would otherwise have spent on my children's education on other things.

Same with private healthcare. By using private health care, I am not a burden on the NHS, and their resources can be allocated to other people who need it.

Also, I do not claim child benefit on principle.

You can be right wing (ish) and have principles, you know

I think it often comes to weighing up the costs and benefits of a choice -

So, using private healthcare - +lots for child, -tiny bit for society (the impact of your one visit/course of treatment)

At the other extreme - murder of homeless person for organs
+lots for child, -more for one specific other person

We wouldn't put our principles over the welfare of our child

This is how I feel. My principles haven't changed, but my commitment to live out (some) of them has.

I'd rather be a hypocrite than make my child a martyr.

Chandon - I am really interested when people have compromised for their children. I understand for you and many parents there is no ethical dilemma over private ed and health care - but have you compromised on other principles since having children?

Wasn't really intending to cause the usual state/private debate more about how parents rationalise any compromises they make for their children.