Political Liberalism and the Interests of Children: A Reply to Timothy Michael Fowler

Abstract

Timothy Michael Fowler has argued that, as a consequence of their commitment to neutrality in regard to comprehensive doctrines, political liberals face a dilemma. In essence, the dilemma for political liberals is that either they have to give up their commitment to neutrality (which is an indispensible part of their view), or they have to allow harm to children. Fowler's case for this dilemma depends on ascribing to political liberals a view which grants parents a great degree of freedom in deciding on the education of their children. I show that ascribing this view to political liberals rests upon a misinterpretation of political liberalism. Since political liberals have access to reasons based upon the interests of children, they need not yield to parent's wishes about the education of their children. A correct understanding of political liberalism thus shows that political liberals do not face the dilemma envisaged by Fowler.

LGBT‐Inclusive Education in Liberal Pluralist Societies

“…Many political liberals have argued that this implies that children need introducing to a diversity of views. 15 Applying this to LGBT education, we might argue that students should be introduced both to the fact that LGBT relationships exist and that some reasonable citizens view these as healthy relationships.…”

Classical Liberal Argument Against Parental Rights

“…Fowler (2010) emphasises that the restriction on government power leads to undesirable consequences, as parents can instil bizarre and dangerous beliefs in their children. Andersson (2011) answers Fowler, and believes that political liberalism places more restrictions on parental authority than suggested by Fowler, and that we have access to some of the interests of children, which implies that we can protect these interests. Ruderman and Godwin (2000) also discuss liberalism and parental control of education.…”