| Viewing Single Post From: Morality | |
|---|---|
| +Reaver | Jan 2 2008, 12:05 AM |
|
Troll
![]()
|
It's very simple logic and doesn't consider variables, such as the parents involved, the job held by the parents, the neighborhood, the child's other influences, et cetera. Except you're assuming that a single parent family doesn't have a reliable job that can cover maybe 1-4 people. It's not like all single parents work behind the register at a fast food joint. I would say "may arise" rather than "would arise"; it seems odd to insinuate that one parent cannot work and support a child's development because it very much depends on the parent. Two parents can share duties of raising a child and this is the main boon to a traditional family, but this isn't necessary when one parent can do this and we shouldn't say the traditional family is the primary reason because it isn't. Context. Ferguson says this, but his study points to different, more important factors on the effects of children and their development. Conventional wisdom isn't going to overtake a study, especially a larger study with 1000 people. You never answered the question: "Exceptions? To what?" Two parents may be more capable than a single parent, and I agree with this portion, but I don't see why that warrants the "traditional family" as a moral in society because it clearly isn't a necessary piece when it breaks down to what is utilitarian and keeps a society running. |
Favorite Staffer Summer 2008 -- Send me a Personal Message | |
![]() |
|
| Morality · Debate Forum | |





4:56 AM Nov 26






