This is philosophy bites with me, Nigel.
Warburton, and me, David Edmonds.
Philosophy Bites is unfunded.
Please help us keep it going by subscribing or donating at www.philosophybytes.com, or you can become a patron at Patreon.
Parents favour their own children over other children, and most of us believe that, that they're right to do so.
They've got special obligations to their kids.
But how far does a parent's right to favor his or her children stretch?
How much privilege should parents be able to confer on their children?
Adam Swift and Harry Brickhouse have written a book which addresses this question.
We spoke to Professor Swift.
Adam Swift, welcome to philosophy Bites.
Thank you for having me.
The topic we're going to focus on is parental partiality.
Now, it seems obvious that as parents, we should be partial to our children.
We should give them every advantage we can.
How could anybody even question that?
Well, I think that in practice, people do question the idea that parents should be able to do everything that they can for their children.
Most obviously, people feel they shouldn't break the law just because it would be in their child's interest for them to do so.
So the idea that we have kind of duties to others that constrain what we may legitimately do for our children, I think is quite widely accepted.
And so is the idea that there's a problem if children from poor families have much worse chances in life than children from rich families.