Olivia Beech
Ethics Argument Paper (Final Draft)
December 4th, 2015
Subjectivity is what dictates how each of us see the world and one another, which is why
we develop idealized images for what we think something should be, even if we are seeing it as
it is. Labels are inescapable, and while this is a realistic analysis, it does not in any way justify
the stigma that is received by those who do not fit the mold we attempt to force them in. This can
be applied to many areas, but what about family? Family may seem untouchable, but it actually
receives plenty of criticism with how it’s formed. Take into consideration, single child families
and the dilemma of the only child. Typically, they are stigmatized for failing to provide the child
with a playmate, creating natural consequences such as selfish behavior, dependency, and lack of
social skills. However, this assumption is far from factual. Although I acknowledge that the
majority of the American population follows a ‘nuclear family’ structure, and is socially
conditioned to believe its ideal, I claim that parents have the right to determine how many
children they should have and that we should not demonize the image of a single child family. If
we live in a country that was founded on beliefs of protecting personal freedoms and practices, is
it fair to say that any form of stigmatization towards these people could be considered
hypocritical?
Our era has evolved into a new period of acceptance and toleration. Fight campaigns set
against sexism, racial prejudice and homophobic hate have resulted from our changed
perspective on what is acceptable and what isn’t. We’ve come to learn that a label cannot be
placed on everything with an identity to match. This only tarnishes the accurate element of a
person’s story or circumstance, allowing us to see only what we want. But, haven’t we managed
to change that same issue in some areas of our modern day history, like marriage rights, social
equalities, women in politics, etc.? If we can campaign for equality in these areas, how are
parental rights any different? We have accomplished granting same sex couples the legal
permission to marry and have children of their own. IF something this controversial can be
surpassed and culturally accepted, then why can’t we apply that same philosophy to any families
making personal decisions about how many children they should have? Why can’t a similar
freedom of choice be placed here as well, without criticism? According to the 2014 Markkula
article of Applied Ethical Decisions, “when decisions have to be made about how benefits and
burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably
arise” (Velazquez, Meyers, etc.) Given that only children have no authority or control over this
decision, stigmatization should not be defended or justified in any way. In addition to this,
producing stereotypical ideas about what only children are should not result as a natural
consequence. The negative qualities that any person may come to possess is generally caused by
environment, social influence, or behavioral factors that are rooted in psychology and other
neurological functions. Your birth order or conditions are not always relevant to your character
development or upbringing, and it is not fair to assume that this is the main cause and applicable
to everyone. As individuals, we should be capable of providing fair treatment to both the child
and the parent(s), which essentially mirrors the concept of the justice and fairness ethical
framework.
Now, shifting away from the idea of how one child is being negatively affected by its
parent’s choices, this argument could also provide a utilitarian solution. Our country has faced
plenty in the past decade; global competition, over-populating/immigration issues, even a
longstanding recession period in our economy. Even with the financial capabilities of the United
States, we are still facing issue of unemployment, government funding, and national debt. If a
parent had decided to produce only one child, wouldn’t this potentially provide a relief to those
complications? In reference to the Markkula Utilitarian Ethical Framework, “In short, we can’t
just look at consequences for ourselves or our group to decide what is ethical, because everyone
affected by the action has equal standing as a person” (2014). Essentially, one parent’s decision
has the capacity to positively affect millions of citizens, which strongly reflects the ethical
element it possesses. It’s interesting how this argument can be taken in two positive ways,
benefitting both the economic standing of our country and respecting the rights of another. Less
people have to be financially accommodated, parents worry less about future expenses such as
college tuitions and medical bills. According to a recent statistical fact produced in the TIME
Magazine article, “The Economic Reason for Having Only One Child”, an average child born in
2011 costs around $234,900 until they reach the age of 18 (Sandler, 2013). The one child alone is
accompanied by so much responsibility, both emotionally and financially for the parent(s),
adding more would only increase the economic burden. In addition to this, according to a recent
2015 study on national fertility rates, the average United States family has only 1.87 children
(CIA World Fact Book and Publications). There is a huge difference in the number of children
per woman in the 1950’s and now, the numbers going from an average of 3 children down to
barely 2 (PBS, 2015). Given the historical context of these numbers, a clear pattern can be seen
here; as our economy had grown after the post-WWII period, our population number dropped as
a result. The demand for more potential soldiers, factory workers, industrialists, etc. had declined
as we became the leading world superpower. So now, what reason would we have for placing a
negative connotation on something that could potentially contribute positively to managing our
many current crises? With less people to account for, multiple areas can heal, further
demonstrating how only children do not present an issue, but could possibly solve it.
The main area of criticism single child families receive, is the possibility of producing a
person who is self-involved, emotionally dependent, and who lacks social depth. But what
psychological tests do we have to prove this theory? Granted, famous father of psychological
studies, Freud states that a child (specifically, an only child) will be subjected to fit the social
pressure of their environment and lack continuity in personal development (Sandler, 2014).
However, this observation is not only dated, but hardly scientific given that it cannot be tested or
produce factual data. No sources or any form of substantial psychology-based analyses or
experimental findings were produced to support this claim, it is a mere observation of social
behavior in a few individuals. It’s unfair to apply one person’s untested theory to the identity of
millions. These assumptions are being based on mere opinions and outside perspectives,
generally coming from those who lack personal experience. In a recent content analysis, a similar
problem had arose in researched images that were produced by Google. More than half of the
images that did not contain actual children, were mainly comprised of negative messages about
what it means to be an only child. This lacked both substantial evidence and represented these
individuals in an almost dehumanized fashion, with negative words illustrating an idea rather
than a fact. This demonstrates how the only child is just an idea in itself, something that does not
possess actual logic, but only a culturally-driven image that has been around for too long. Also, it
is important to take this argument from the perspective of the child. Yes, siblings provide less
stress on finding suitable playmates, issues of solitude and can provide a kind of emotional
support system. However, many disadvantages can accompany this situation. Struggles with
shared attention between the children and the parent(s), hierarchical relationships between the
oldest and youngest siblings, and the conflict surrounding which child needs to be prioritized
more than the other(s). Eliminating these complications allows a child to develop skills of self-
sufficiency and independence, was well as not having to face an issue of their emotional or
material needs not being equally met. It isn’t fair to assume that the life of an only child is an
empty one that lacks the social warmth that comes with extra members in the household. The
concept of ‘extended family’ is very much relevant here, with friends and other relatives acting
as surrogates. The idea of family for an only child actually touches a more spiritual level, since
their immediate family tends to be smaller than others and they manage to find others to
emotionally bond with. To an only child, the concept of familial relation goes well beyond
biology, dismantling the idea that they struggle with normal social behaviors and selflessness.
If humanity is capable of developing a changed perspective about so many traditional
values of American society, then why can’t the personal right of a parent or family also fall
under that same philosophy of respect and toleration? Again, I am well aware that the idealized
image of the family household is a widely accepted aspect of our culture, but culture is everchanging and continuously evolving. What benefit do we have by continuing to hold onto an
outdated assumption that is gradually being seen as the norm? Yes, in past times, having a large
family was beneficial for producing more financial stability, but as our culture has changed and
our economy has evolved, we are now seeing the opposite. Having a smaller number of children
is gradually becoming an assimilated quality to American culture, so why soil the image and
violate personal rights in the process? I am arguing that any fitting parents have the personal
right to decide how many children they should include in their family, whether that be one child
or one hundred. And in terms of single child families, I believe that no prejudicial judgment
should be passed on the choices that they believe are most fitting for their lives. We can
approach this with a call on both equality and utilitarian values, since others can benefit from this
cultural acceptance. Why not respect a concept that embodies basic human rights, while also
protecting the idea of the common good?