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?

Quizzical: "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."

I think that my example was slightly different. You could argue that as a general rule killing 1 person to save the lives of 100 is an ethical thing to do. (Though of course there are all sorts of objections to this - if you killed your next door neighbour and used his kidneys, heart, lungs etc for transplants that would save several people's lives, would that be OK? Of course not. So it's complicated.)

But in my example, we're talking about a parent's view of their own child. And I think it would be very hard to expect of a parent that they sacrifice their child to protect others. An adult might be prepared to lay down his or her own life to save others, and there are examples of amazing people who have done this. But to lay down the life of your child to save others? That's another thing altogether.

Agree with you hack mum - the only ethical way to sacrifice a life for others is to sacrifice your own - your child is an individual and not actually yours to sacrifice.

Of course unless you're God,

Emphaticmaybe Thu 12-Jul-12 15:29:32

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.

Finland's educational success is not just down to the schooling. It's down to the social structure of the country. We don't have that structure.

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

How many people's freedom to choose are you going to take away in order to achieve your 'fairer' system? How will you know when you've reached "fair"? What is 'fairer' anyway? Is it 'fair' that Christina Hendricks has the boobs of twelve women?

I have a real problem with vague terms like 'fair' and 'social justice' because they can mean everything from 'higher taxes to pay for healthcare' to 'communism'.

If you find that what you do in the interests of your child is in conflict with your principles, then maybe it's time to revisit and reassess your principles, and revise them if necessary. Otherwise you are implying that the rules that apply generally to others do not apply to you.

I didn't see anything wrong, for example, with Harriet Harman sending her son to a (ultra-selective) grammar school in Orpington. What was hypocritical was her omission after making this decision to defend academic selection for others.

Similarly Diane Abbott and private education.

It's the morality of the commissar: "Look, you ordinary people at the wonderful facilities we are providing for you. Except I'm different. I need something a bit better than you".

grimbletart Thu 12-Jul-12 13:33:10
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.
---
true dat, but i can afford to uphold my beliefs - as im skint

Custardo: then it's not really a belief or a principle is it? It's just an assertion. If you are in the lucky position one day of being able to afford some of things you disapprove of e.g. private education/healthcare and you take advantage of them (as you indicated you would upthread) then it's not a belief or a principle is it? It's just general mouthing off to look compassionate, left wing, holier than thou type shit.

Agree with PP who said it depends on the situation.

Since having my DS though I think I am much more sure of my principles and opinions.

So are you honestly telling me flatpackmaster that there is no way to have a more equal society without resorting to communism?
That just sounds like right-wing scare tactics.

So wanting a really well- funded national health service, high quality state education, a justice system that is blind to wealth and connections is communist? You can dismiss all this with 'where will it all end?' as though that in itself is a step too far.

Most people who use these arguments are worried about losing their own vested interests. They tells us the levels of inequality are just a by-product of freedom and not actually the result of a minorities selfish individualism and reluctance to give up privilege, (avoidance/evasion of tax, the banking crisis, 70% of high court judges, 54% of chief executives, 35% of MPs, and over half the civil service all privately educated) which all help the top 10% to be 500 times richer than the bottom 10%.

Is thinking this has to change really the slippery slope to communism?

Oh and sorry for derailing my own thread,

if you feel inferior to my holier than thou shit - that's really your problem. I stated quite clearly that i can have a certain ideology without having to opt out of society. principles are fine - but one usually needs money to hold them.

its very easy to say that you are dye in the wool individualist capitalist who would take advantage of the poor in a society that takes advantage of the poor

thats not a principle at all.

I have become more principled since having the DDs.

I was vapid and shallow at 20, I'm an anarcha-feminist at 28. Totally surprised myself!

Maybe in some situations there isn't as big a conflict as we think there is? I mean, it is completely possible to believe that every child has the right to a great education AND also believe that your local state school will not provide that for your child (who you also believe has a right to a great education which you are more directly responsible for) and seek an alternative.

Its not really putting your child above the others in the local area, its making use of your ability to change things for your child, in a way you cannot for others. The result may well be that your child will get a better education than their peers, but if you had sent them to the school it would not have made things better for their classmates, it would have just meant the resources were spread more thinly?

I suppose the danger of people opting out of the state sector is that they may cease to care about the quality of education provided there - I'm alright Jack - which is daft - because even if your children are educated privately they will still need to live in a society where most are not. We all benefit from having a great state sector education.

I think you could send your child to a private school and still feel sorry that not everyone has the option to do so. You could still campaign for better education standards for all. I suppose its the difference between believing that the children of poor parents are just as entitled to a great education as those of rich parents versus believing that rich parents shouldn't be able to give their children access to a better education if one is available? I don't want to abolish private education, I just wish that that state education was so good that most people wouldn't see the point in paying for something that's available for free.

My view has probably altered overtime to be less anti private education, not because I'm pregnant, but because my DH went to a private school (assisted place, his parents couldn't have afforded it) - but its still that thing of widening of experience.

Of course, we are unlikely to be able to afford private education, so this is unlikely to be an issue for us personally. However, my disatisfaction with the education system may result in homeschooling our children for at least part of their education. I realise that this is not an option that all parents could manage or even consider. I don't think it would be hypocritical of me to still believe in improving state education for every child though?

Sorry, I've concentrated on the education element of this. Other strong principles I have are environmental - I realise that having my first child may put a strain on these, but I hope I can stick to them as much as possible.

Although I've always believed in equality, becoming pregnant made me think more deeply about gender issues - I don't know whether I am having a girl or a boy - which makes you think about the consequences of being born male or female.

if you feel inferior to my holier than thou shit - that's really your problem. I stated quite clearly that i can have a certain ideology without having to opt out of society. principles are fine - but one usually needs money to hold them.

Inferior to your holier than thou shit . Your argument is confusing. You say you have this ideology but would make use of the things that conflict with this ideology if you had the money. Funny sort of ideology that is.

its very easy to say that you are dye in the wool individualist capitalist who would take advantage of the poor in a society that takes advantage of the poor
thats not a principle at all.

You're right - it would be easy and it's not a principle. But that's not what I said so that's a straw man.

FWIW: I believe in the welfare state, in helping those who are vulnerable, in a good education and social services etc. and in paying the taxes that provide them. I just don't think that you have to be a socialist or have left wing ideology to hold those values. It's how we can best provide a system that can deliver these values that matters - and that's an economic and practical argument, not one of principle.

I think both the NHS and state education need reform, but not sure it's mainly a matter of money tbh

NHS- far too much money-sucking management and not enough front line staff.

Schools- kids frankly need to learn to STFU and listen, and appreciate the fact that they are enormously educationally privilged by global standards and not expect to find every second of every lesson utterly scintilating and entertaining. Ongoing, low level disruption is the bane of the state education system (not all schools, but enough of them to be of concern). There are a lot of kids who need to wake up and smell the coffee, or they'll be cleaning floors in Beijing.

I think the wider point is that an individual can't effect society very much through their own individual choices. So if (for example) you passionately believe in state education as an ideal, but the government is hell bent on running it into the ground, your individual choice to send DC's to state school will have little or no impact.
I believe in council housing as an ideal but am an owner occupier on a council estate. By the time I was ready to marry and settle down the stock of council housing had been completely decimated and simply didn't exist as an option as it had for my parents, so I bought. I'm fully aware that my presence on the estate is a privilege gained at the expense of others who are not able to buy, but what to do? There is no equivalent to buying fair trade on some issues. The choices in front of us are shaped by society. IMO the answer is to change society not beat ourselves up about the things we need to do to get by.

But isn't that something of a cop out, or at least supports the OP's point that very few of us can consider ourselves the slightest bit principled? We all just "do for ourselves" the best we can.

Who is society? Society is all of us. The future is just a culmination of millions of individual actions. Gandhi probably had it right when he said "Be the change you want to see in the world".

"The future is just a culmination of millions of individual actions"

Not if the problem is caused by an organised system. Then you need an organised response to counter it. An individual response is ineffective.

So, in education for example, the teachers unions can campaign against academies and parents can help by supporting the campaign through PTA's as governors etc.
This might stand a chance of effecting some change. Just sending your kids to a comprehensive and taking no further action is likely to be ineffective however.
This is precisely because the education system has not been formed as a result of the culmination of individual actions but as a result of deliberate policy decisions by governments.

But a counter movement has to have principles to have any credibility. if someone's not prepared to live up to their principles, why should I consider their cause important enough to join?

Someone has to be the person who steps over the line.

OK, yeah I agree. I suppose it just annoys me when people want a biscuit for using state schools and the NHS and doing nothing further. Its not a huge moral stand to use a service!

I may have re-evaluated some of my principles or dropped some that I hadn't thought through. But on the whole I think having children has made me realise how strongly I feel about my real principles. Because I realise that a society where weaker members are sidelined and oppressed is also a less safe and less happy place for my children to grow up in: if I want to ensure their happiness, the central issue is to help to create a decent society for them to live in. And then do my best to ensure that they are decent people. Social structure is very much about the attitude of the people who live in the country, what they are prepared to accept, what they are not prepared to accept.

Damn, I forgot to make my main point in those last posts. I think that our power as citizens (our ability to vote and campaign for political change) is more powerful than our power as consumers (limited by our income, undemocratic). This idea is explored by the writer of the Story of Stuff who has made videos about using our power of citizenship instead (or as well as) using our power as consumers.

The idea is that buying fairtrade to support better working conditions is okay, as is buying organic to support environmentally sustainable farming. But that these choices aren't available to everyone (due to costs) and in some ways its a distraction from creating the political change to make better working conditions and environmentally sustainable farming standard through regulation (to prevent exploitation of people and the environment).

Making choices as consumers, is limited by the choices available and our unequal levels of disposible income - plus buying more stuff isn't necessarily the answer to things like reducing pollution etc.

So I guess what I'm saying is that on many issues, campaigning for better standards is actually more important than buying whatever the ethical option is (whichever option you deem that to be). So its possible to campaign for something - say better minimum animal welfare standards, whilst being unable to buy higher welfare products that are already available (and charged a premium for).

Interestingly I do buy free range/organic when I can... using my consumer power to do something others cannot... should I stubbornly still buy the cheapest products because I believe that they ought to be of a higher minimum welfare standard for everyone? Surely thats what those who are saying those who believe in state education should do - stick with it regardless of the quality and your ability to buy better out of solidarity with those who cannot?

Surely its only hypocritical if you cease to care (and campaign) for better minimum standards for all? (whether education, or higher welfare of animal products etc)

I'm still not sure I've made my point, but at least its an attempt?
(I do realise that those who feel strongly about animal welfare but cannot afford premium priced animal products do have the option to abstain altogether - a different argument though and I have been a vegetarian in the past).

You make some very interesting points Spiritedwolf.

I think it is a reasonable argument to say that if it is necessary to compromise your principles for the sake of your child's welfare, (say private school or health care) then the ethical response would still be to campaign for reform of the structures to increase equality.

Emphaticmaybe

You make some very interesting points Spiritedwolf.

I think it is a reasonable argument to say that if it is necessary to compromise your principles for the sake of your child's welfare, (say private school or health care) then the ethical response would still be to campaign for reform of the structures to increase equality.

No, that's hypocrisy, and it's the stock-in-trade of the Left. "Do what I say, not what I do."

When I met my other half he was an eco fusspot and leftie. Now we live in the Middle East and drive a Hummer and pay no tax. That's because he wants the best life possible for his family. I don't really get why you would make your child suffer for the good of a society you don't know and, frankly, your gesture will not have any impact.