Get your own Free Home Page"Teenagers need privacy; it allows them to have a life of their own. By providing privacy, we demonstrate respect."
My concurrence with the views of Dr. Haim Ginott causes me to stand resolved that "An adolescent's right to privacy ought to be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know".
In order to clarify the grounds of this debate, I submit the following definitions: according to Webster's New World Dictionary, an "adolescent" is defined as "a boy or a girl from puberty to adulthood, a teen-age person." The American Heritage Dictionary defines "privacy" as "The state of being free from unsanctioned intrusion," and "ought" as "To indicate obligation." Finally, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "valued" as "To rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth."
In order to uphold my stance on this resolution, I shall utilize the value of the Welfare of the Child and the criterion of rule-utilitarianism, defined as the philosophy of providing the greatest good to the greatest number. I shall uphold these values in the following three contentions:
CONTENTION ONE : Privacy is a universal human right, and as such it cannot be denied to an individual solely because they are an adolescent. CONTENTION TWO : An adolescent cannot be denied their right to privacy unless it has been proven that their possession thereof would prove unsafe. and CONTENTION THREE : The right to privacy is more beneficial to an adolescent than the lack thereof.
Now, allow me to discuss these contentions individually
First, let's consider CONTENTION ONE : Privacy is a universal human right, and as such it cannot be denied to an individual solely because they are an adolescent.
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
So reads the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations of 1948.
Fifty years ago, a group of countries, including our own, created an agreement. This agreement, known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, put into words the birthrights of every human being, including privacy. By definition, a universal human right, such as life, liberty, property, or, in this case, privacy, cannot be denied to any individual unless it is discovered that their possession thereof would prove unsafe. Parents, serving essentially as the governors of their offspring, are bound to uphold these universal rights just as are any individuals or governments. Not many parents regularly make it a practice to violate their children's basic human rights of life, liberty, safety, and property. Privacy should be no exception. Denying an adolescent this right not only harms their well-being, but, eventually, that of the parents as well, thus negating the criteria of rule-utilitarianism.
Now, let's turn to CONTENTION TWO : An adolescent cannot be denied their right to privacy unless it has been proven that their possession thereof would prove unsafe.
In the previous contention, I established that an adolescent cannot be denied privacy solely because they are and adolescent. Now, I shall demonstrate that an adolescent has the ability to control their own right to privacy in all cases, the only exception being when their possession thereof would prove unsafe or illegal.
Said Randall P. Banzanson, Dean and Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, "If we are to protect privacy as it is manifested in today's social environment, the legal system's policies must be grounded in the individual's choices, and placed substantially in the individual's hands."
An adolescent is no exception to this standard, and ought to be allowed to wield their right to privacy as they see necessary. Privacy may only be denied to the adolescent if a court of law finds that they are unfit to utilize it, in such a case where the adolescent's possession thereof proves unsafe, either to their own person or to that of others. Then, and only then , is the exception. In all other cases, adolescents are to be considered able to make their own judgments, use their own rights, and conduct their own affairs without unnecessary parental intervention.
With these arguments in mind, let's consider CONTENTION THREE : The right to privacy is more beneficial to an adolescent than the lack thereof.
A teenager raised in a household where privacy was nonexistent and safety paramount would have little or no knowledge of how to responsibly conduct their own affairs after leaving this "safe haven." Such a home environment would grant peace of mind to the parents, at the expense of their adolescent's natural maturation and growth.
Even if we are to discount this somewhat extreme example (that is, the utter absence of privacy), negating this resolution allows parents to invade their children' privacy if they perceive a situation exists that they ought to be aware of. Violation of privacy is essentially a demonstration of a parent's lack of respect for their adolescent, as Howard Cohen wrote in Equal Rights for Children : "The reason for a right to privacy is that intrusions on privacy are, by nature, indignities. To violate a person's privacy without consent is to treat that person with disrespect ."
This disrespect leads to difficulties in the parent-adolescent relationship, as well as additional obstructions on the adolescent's path to adulthood, all of which lead to a decline in the child's well-being and the negation of the criterion of rule-utilitarianism, as the parents do not benefit from a strained relationship with their offspring, either.
However, by supporting their adolescents' right to privacy, parents promote their offspring's well-being, as well as their own.
Now, in conclusion, allow me to summarize the arguments I have presented.
Essentially, I established using the first and second contentions, that an adolescent can both posses and control their own right to privacy unless they are using said right to cover-up illegal or dangerous activities. Later, in my third contention, I demonstrated that providing an adolescent with the right to privacy not only benefits them by enhancing their well-being, but it benefits their entire family by upholding rule-utilitarianism. If privacy is not supported, the neither the well-being of the child nor rule-utilitarianism are upheld, as the negative view damages both the adolescent and family.
For the reasons I have stated, please join me in affirming the resolution "An adolescent's right to privacy ought to be valued above a parent's conflicting right to know."
I now stand open for cross-examination.
Get your own Free Home Page