Bien 1

Ariana Bien

Dr. Williams

Philosophy 216

December 10, 2015

A Criticism of Hugh LaFollette’s Licensing Parents[U1]

In order to be able to drive, one must be found to be a responsible and safe driver through a mandatory driving test. In order to practice medicine or be a doctor, one must be found to be knowledgeable in their concentration through rigorous schooling and testing. In order to be able to adopt, parents must be cleared as responsible and capable of raising another human being through various interviews and evaluations. However, in order to have biological children, there is no requirement of a license of any sort. With high poverty rates, where children are born into homelessness or hunger, the crowding of our foster system with children up for adoption, and parents who turn out to be abusive, LaFollete argues that parents should be licensed before being able to reproduce. He follows the logic that if licensing is required for other professions, why not require it of one of the most important roles in our society, parenting? I am going to counter his practical argument because while it sounds good in theory, there is no way to execute the licensing of parents in a fair and unbiased manner that would not violate a couple’s right to reproduce.

One of the objections he addresses is that one cannot predict bad parents, to which he says that although true, it is not a unique problem. He argues that predictive tests would not need a score of 100 to pass, as is the case in licensing drivers and lawyers as well, but we (society) still “recognize these deficiencies yet embrace the procedures anyway.”[1] To his response, I contend that his reply lacks substance because he has not outlined the criterion of a good parent yet. What exactly does he plan to test them on? Do not certain qualities of parents hold higher value than others? It is easy to say that getting a perfect score is not necessary when the criterion that one will be scored on has not been developed.

LaFollette would respond, “Although we do not have infallible criteria for picking out good parents, we undoubtedly can identify bad ones—those who will abuse or neglect.”[2]He later discusses the construction of reliable predictable tests that would identify a “risk group” of individuals more likely to have problems in raising children.[3] However, the implication of identifying only the very worst of possible parents means that anyone who does not noticeably abuse their child is being granted the right to apply the bare minimum to being a parent. That does not seem morally justifiable. By not attempting to identify the characteristics of a good parent, licensure is solely depending on the fact that a couple is not the worst they can be, and therefore have permission to have a child. No other licensure test is dependent on the premise that “you didn’t fail, so you pass” without other conditions and requirements. To deny and grant a license to be parents based only on a test of proneness to abuse and neglect is unfair as there are more ways to be an incompetent parent than inflicting physical harm.

Another objection LaFollette addressed was enforcement and how he expects to deal with individuals who have children without a proper license. He replies that there is adoption, but also asserts that “even if we are presently uncertain about the precise way to establish a just and effective form of enforcement, [he] does not see why this should undermine [his] licensing proposal.”[4]

My response is that we already have many children who need to be adopted, and adding to that number is not fixing any problems. Of course, he would argue that if couples are not licensed, they would know not to have children, therefore no extra children would be added to the system and it would even out. However, that mindset is ignoring the fact that if they are not licensed and they have a child, they most likely were not planning on becoming parents and that it was an accident. The numbers would not even out because not every couple who has a child by accident gives their child up, and licensing would require them too. An objection one might have to that is that they can apply and achieve licensure if they wish to keep the child then, but if a license is not granted, assuming they were denied for something other than abuse such as what was deemed to be an inappropriate income (which can be subjective to a point), then the number of children needing to be adopted who otherwise would have had a home increases.

Adoption aside, though, he expresses how he thinks not having an effective method of enforcement does not delegitimize his proposal. In fact, he thinks if ensuring children are not maltreated by their parents is important enough, then a reasonable enforcement procedure can probably be found; “At least we should assume one can be unless someone shows that it cannot.”[5] His concluding sentence is flawed because the condition he gives is extremely vague and does not provide any sort of solution or guidance. The statement can be applied to anything, but that does not make it true. It can be flipped and still appear to make sense. For instance, if I used that statement to defend a parent’s right to reproducing, I would say, “no reasonable enforcement can probably be found. At least we should assume one cannot unless someone shows that it can.” My statement has the exact same effect as his, which is none. Furthermore, the fact that he even suggests that one should assume that good enforcement can be found acknowledges that adoption is a flawed enforcement method and may not be reasonable.

LaFollette also draws a parallel between adoption and his own proposal for a procedure to license couples that wish to be parents. He stresses, “the adoptive process is far more rigorous than the general licensing procedures I envision.”[6] And while that may be true, children in foster care and up for adoption are generally children who have already lived through traumatic experiences or who have at least faced hardships that may have negatively impacted them. Therefore, the process is so rigorous because it would irresponsible to place these children back in a poor environment. The situations of these children are vastly different from a biological child in their own home, which explains why their cases are treated with extra care and sensitivity.

In theory, licensing parents would ensure that no child is in a home that does not feel like a home. It would ensure that children are loved, taken care of, and looked out for. However, it just is not practical. A test to determine good parents would be too subjective, and a test to determine bad parents is too conditional, too “hit or miss.” Furthermore, no real enforcement method has been developed. Ultimately, what LaFollette has is a vague outline of an idea with no expanded plan of how to execute it in a fair and reasonable manner.

[1]"Licensing Parents."In Philosophy and Public Affairs, 396.Princeton University Press, 1980.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.,398.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[U1]Grade: 92