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 am a raging hypocrite and going to church just to get dd into a good school

Pass rates are 94% vs 72%

Can't afford private or to move, so setting aside my beliefs it is

The examples of choosing private / religious schools for your children when in principle you favour state education are interesting and debate-worthy.

But the real crunch comes in the extreme examples, like the couple just jailed for 27 months each for covering up a murder their son had committed. I would like to think that not many of us would ditch our moral compass to that extent, but I am willing to be surprised. I think those parents must have had extremely lax moral fibre to begin with in orderto contemplate such a thing.

Likewise the parents of Sean Mercer (the gang member who shot little Rhys Jones in Liverpool a few years ago) who were tried and convicted of perverting the course of justice by giving a false alibi for their son were not, I don't think, upstanding members of their community even before their son shot an innocent 11 year old. So it wasn't a big leap in principle, although clearly it was heinous.

But for ordinary, moral people who believe in doing the right thing, how far would we go to protect our children?

This woman for example is an idiot. And Daily Mail hacks wonder why they have a bad name.

Principles come with a price. Not necessarily a monetary price, but they always, always have a price. Most people find that their child's happiness and/or wellbeing is a price they aren't willing to pay.

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.

This is perfectly fine. What I don't like is people who swerve around their principles to benefit their own child (say) but still want to change the system to prevent other parents benefiting in the future.

Chandon. Well said. The idea espoused by some that principles are inherently left wing is mistaken.

People who chose to use private education or health are still paying their taxes and those taxes are being used to benefit others using the state system. There is an argument to be made that people who can afford to use private systems are morally bound to do so, so that those who can't afford to can get the benefit of the 'unused' portion of taxes in the system. In fact, that is what we are seeing in the care of the elderly. Those who are either wealthy through luck or, more often, have worked extremely hard, been prudent and saved for old age are expected to use their savings for care, when those who have been unable to save through poverty or haven't bothered to save are paid for by the state.

(I have no particular axe to grind here having used both private and state systems, but I don't like the rather smug idea of some holding these principles who seem to think they should apply to everyone else except themselves).

I actually know someone who was privately educated and swore any children of hers would also be. She and her husband are able financially to send them to private school, but would have to sacrifice foreign holidays, large house, lifestyle etc - the children are at state schools.

They made a compromise but not in the way you'd expect. She constantly beats herself up over this.

Sorry, it was Sean Mercer's mother who was convicted, his father was not in his life at the time of the crime.

It was James Yates' parents I was thinking of. They discussed the crime in their home, not realising it had been bugged by police. They were both convicted.

I'm not sure that the parents lying to police are about compromising principles - those parents are obviously of the belief that it is okay to lie to police about serious crimes, so their principles haven't been compromised.

If my DD broke the law I wouldn't cover for her, and I hope she wouldn't expect me to, just as I wouldn't expect my parents to (not that I break the law).

I don't think that Mercer's mother's principles were compromised, they were heavily involved in crime.

I do see families covering up child abuse but that is a attitude about the rights of children rather than principle's, so once again, nothing is comprimised.

I don't think I have compromised on my principles since having children. (look at me on my high horse), maybe I did not have such amazing principles to start with???

If anything, I think it is a very important part of parenting to share your principles with the DC.

I would not get my kids to the front of the queue, anywhere, if it would involve me having to forget my principles about fairness/politeness etc. (I know that this is an argument used by parents who are on principle against private schools, but I honestly cannot see anything immoral with that. I do wish state schools could be just as good)

Problem is, I can't really think of a situation where parents became grabby for their DC sake...Maybe some ruthless business people, like Nina Brink (World Com)who essentially defrauded all the investors, then fled to Argentina and said later: "I did it for my children, all the money I made goes to them, anyone would have done the same" and I thought "NO they would not!".

I know where my moral compass is in relation to my political one - and they can differ quite widely. that is beucase i talk about my political beliefs and how things should be whilst working and living within a capitalist system.

if i could have afforded it i would have chosen private education
If i needed medical treatment i would have to wait 18 months for and i could afford it - i would pay for it
I own a house
I am very interested in my wages and the career ladder and the opportunities ( and pints of beer) that money brings.
I have a cleaner

I don't think i have to opt out of capitalism to hold an idealogical view.
Communitities are concepts and not real anymore. There is little collective action in the work environment. People power is rare. But we are the 99% and together we could collectively force change.

Custardo: that sounds very like "please God make me a Socialist but not before I get my piles operated on by BUPA and my child through Eton."

It is relatively easy to hold an ideological view safe in the knowledge you are unlikely to have to live up to your beliefs.

Greythorne - I find the question of whether all parents are capable of going to extremes to protect their children interesting. It does often seem that the parent's who do have a skewed moral compass anyway and this is often reflected in other aspects of their lives but there are law abiding, moral citizens who when faced with a threat to their child lose their bearings.

I always put myself in imaginary, crazy scenarios where one of my DCs has accidentally killed someone. What would I do then? If I knew it was accidental but it would be difficult to prove and a prison sentence and their life ruined was likely - would I help cover it up? At the same time knowing as a parent I would want the truth if the tables were turned. I like to think we would throw ourselves on the mercy of the British justice system but can you ever be really sure?

Also I imagine if conscription was introduced, ( not sure what war we're fighting) and my sensitive, ASD ish 18 year old was called up - what length would I go to get him out of it knowing other people's sons would be sacrificed?

Just a few of the general musings I have, ( I'm not at all neurotic with too much time on my hands, )

There are two things, I think.

The first is: do you have a special obligation to your own child over and above other children? I think most of us do think that, and feel we have to do the best for our children. It gets interesting when you start asking questions like: if I had a choice between letting my own child die and letting 100 other children I've never met die, which would I do? I think most people would choose their own child.

The other is: to to what extent do you accept the system as it is? In an educational system where, say, there was still an 11+ in place, you would always want your child to go to the grammar school rather than the secondary modern, even if you'd much prefer that there wasn't an 11+ in the first place. Given that it's there, you make sure your child is on the winning side rather than the losing side.

But then there can be no socialism, because when it really comes down to it, hardly anyone is prepared to put "society" above the nuclear family/ their own biological offspring.

Exactly so RichMan. Which is why we see plastic socialists such as Diane Abbott. All principle until their own interests are affected.

I suppose then richman if humans will always put their own biological offspring first it is the duty of a fair society to make sure we don't have a two-tier system in the first place.

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief
But then there can be no socialism, because when it really comes down to it, hardly anyone is prepared to put "society" above the nuclear family/ their own biological offspring.

This is exactly what Hayek was talking about in The Road to Serfdom, where he explains that a socialist system inevitably leads to dictatorship.

In order to have socialism you have to force people to obey the system. There has to be state coercion and you have to deny people their liberty. You're essentially forcing people to act against their nature. A socialist system allows the worst kind of bullying and abuse of the rights of individuals, and all in the name of 'fairness'. As you can see in the post I've quoted from below. The 'duty' of a 'fair' society?

Emphaticmaybe
I suppose then richman if humans will always put their own biological offspring first it is the duty of a fair society to make sure we don't have a two-tier system in the first place.

flatpack - but does a state striving to remove the biggest inequalities have to lead to dictatorship? Is that really the only outcome of a more equal society or is it the outcome the privileged in society and therefore those benefiting most would like us to believe?

Richmanpoorman: "But then there can be no socialism, because when it really comes down to it, hardly anyone is prepared to put "society" above the nuclear family/ their own biological offspring."

I think it's more than biology, tbh. I'm pretty sure adoptive parents feel the same way. You develop a deep attachment to the child you are bringing up. Which in most cases is obviously a good thing, but is bound to create problems too. And that's why Emphaticmaybe is right, of course - and why we would all accept that a justice system, for example, should treat people impartially regardless of whether they are rich or poor, related to the prime minister or not.

Emphaticmaybe

flatpack - but does a state striving to remove the biggest inequalities have to lead to dictatorship? Is that really the only outcome of a more equal society or is it the outcome the privileged in society and therefore those benefiting most would like us to believe?

As soon as you coerce someone in to acting in a particular way, you need to have someone to do the coercing and someone to make the rules about the coercion. Very quickly - within a few years - that group of coercers and rulemakers becomes the elite.

All I can advise you to do is read Hayek, and take a look at the Soviet Union. That was supposed to be an equal society. It was, unless you were a Communist Party member. Party members had their own private lanes on motorways. They had access to the best schools, the best food and drink, black market goods paid for in dollars, and so on. They dominated all the best jobs. You couldn't get a promotion unless you were a Party member. It became an aristocracy.

I was thinking about Finland's educational success without private schools, (not sure there is loads of coercing there) and our own 7% dominating the positions of power and influence, the appalling two-tier justice and health care systems in the US and our own shift in that direction.

A fairer system doesn't ultimately have to be modelled on the soviet system.

hackmum, re your comment It gets interesting when you start asking questions like: if I had a choice between letting my own child die and letting 100 other children I've never met die, which would I do? I think most people would choose their own child.

Isn't that utilitarianism? Ie the doctrine that the most ethical course of action is the one that achieves the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.

For example, (and probably not the most elegant example), a plane crashes in the Andes, and in order to survive the 29 stranded passengers eat an old fat man of their number. They survive and are rescued. Thus one person dies to save 29.

Another common example often cited, of course, is the decision to drop atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The utilitarianist justification (assuming historical accuracy of the follow) is that as a few people were aware that the Japanese were in the process of developing atomic weaponry themselves, and say that if the US had not taken that action many more nations could have been wiped out in Japan's quest for world dominion.

So if we put the happiness of our one child over the happiness of many, then that is anti-utilitarianist and unethical. Practically we are unlikely to face that dilemma in terms of life and death.

But I do think of this ethical dilemma in terms of child-labour - ie did children slave in far-Eastern factories to manufacture the cheap clothes/toys that my pampered and privileged child enjoys? I think the ethical approach is to do your utmost not to buy any mass-produced product that has dubious origins. Even if the children making Wall-mart T-shirts, mining diamonds for engagement rings or stitching Adidas trainers were paid, that meant that they weren't in education, in order to meet the demand of western consumers...

Sorry if this is a bit dull and long, but thanks for the good food-for-though thread!

i think that as your suituation changes so may your outlook on your principles. for example i used to be very against private healthcare but now i use it because i feel that by me doing so i am not costing the nhs money and thus draining a resorce that needs to be there for everyone.

i strongly belive in the benefit system but have set up all my childrens trust funds to make sure they are never in a possition to have to use it because i think it should be used for people who have no other options.

i try to talk to my children about fairness and respect for other people and how there actions impact on others but i dont consider those to be principals i think its just manors.

but if you are unable to reasses your principles then how can you be propally considering them.

imho a stupid person is one who will never back down and never change there mind even when they so obviously should

See, this is why people shouldn't develop a hard and fast rule about something until they have actually been in that situation.

They can say "I have reservations about private education" but shouldn't say "I will never send my children to private school" until they've been there and seen the options.