Kenned Hugh Lafollette Licensing Parents Summary

In Hugh LaFollette’s “Licensing Parents,” he says that we should implement a parent licensing program. In this paper I will explain his argument for this view and offer a focused objection on it.

To begin explaining the views of LaFollette’s argument, I will start by breaking down what he means by regulating potential harmful activities. Our society requires “automobile operators to have licenses and we forbid people from practicing medicine, law, pharmacy, and psychiatry unless they have satisfied certain licensing requirements” (LaFollette 182). Society’s decision to regulate each of these activities is because they could potentially be harmful to others and to provide safe performance of each requires a certain level of competence. To demonstrate

a world without a certain level of competence, Hugh tells you to “Imagine a world in which everyone could legally drive a car, in which everyone could legally perform surgery, prescribe medications, dispense drugs, or offer legal advice. Such a world would hardly be desirable” (LaFollette 183). What Hugh is trying to demonstrate in his argument is that many activities like these listed require people to have the ability to do something successfully or efficiently because the harm these activities can cause on other people would be much greater if anyone was allowed to perform them.
Now that the explanation of regulating potential harmful activities is clear, this brings me to the premises’ LaFollette’s uses in his argument.

Like stated above, activities that have the potential to cause harm to others ought to be regulated in some way. With this being said, the main goal Hugh focuses on is to demonstrate that the licensing of parents is theoretically desirable because it causes harm to others. He says, “The potential for harm is apparent: each year more than half a million children are physically abused or neglected by their parents. Many millions more are psychologically abused or neglected-not given love, respect, or a sense of self-worth” (LaFollette 184). He then says, “Any activity that is potentially harmful to others and requires certain demonstrated competence for its safe performance, is subject to regulation-that is, it is theoretically desirable that we regulate it” (LaFollette 183). Therefore, with this being said, the premises’ LaFollette uses in his argument can be stated

as:
To defend each premise of the argument, LaFollette has made his point clear that it is theoretically desirable to regulate parenting because of the potential harm it can cause on other people.

To defend his first premise, LaFollette targets the licensing of automobile operators because “The potential harm is obvious: incompetent drivers can and do maim and kill people. The best way we have of limiting this harm without sacrificing the benefits of automobile travel is to require that all drivers demonstrate at least minimal competence” (LaFollette 183). The potential harm that can occur from driving is the reason why it is theoretically desirable to regulate it and therefore moves to the second premise. Like stated above, bad parenting causes harm to millions of children that are left neglected by their parents. These “Abused children bear the physical and psychological scars of maltreatment throughout their lives. Far too often they turn to crime. They are far more likely than others to abuse their own children. Even if these maltreated children never harm anyone, they will probably never be well-adjusted, happy adults. Therefore, parenting clearly satisfies the first criterion of activities subject to regulation” (LaFollette 185). The harm children receive from bad parenting leads to a downfall of events that can spread more harm to others through crime or abuse to other children. These points are strong reasons to believing the argument LaFollette writes about to implement

a parenting licensing program.
Although LaFollette states a strong argument on why we should regulate parenting because it causes potential harm to children, some may object to the vague point he makes about parents causing harm to children to where they fail to become well-adjusted, happy adults. LaFollette argues that the reason children do not grow up to be happy adults is caused by parents abusing their children. However, many other factors can cause a child to be unhappy, for example, the genetics the child receives from their parents could be a case of genetic disorder like Down syndrome. This disorder would prevent the child from becoming a happy and well-adjusted adult because of the mental and physical disability caused by the disorder. According to LaFollette, since the genetics would cause emotional distress and harm to the child, the parents would be denied the right to bear a child due to the probability of a passing along a genetic disorder. Many people would agree that it is morally wrong to deny couples from reproducing with the genes that could lead to unhappy children. LaFollette would probably argue back that since the genes are coming from the parents in the first place it would be their fault and thus need to be regulated to prevent it. To respond to that, even though a genetic disorder from the parents can cause unhappiness to a child does not mean the parents would cause harm to their child and neglect them. Also, these parents with a child with a genetic disorder could be the definition of the best parent and never cause physical harm. Therefore, the potential harm from parenting LaFollette talks about needs to reexamined and denies premise 2.