The aims of upbringing, reasonable affect, and parental rights: a response to Paul Hirst's autobiographical reflections.

The article critically examines Paul Hirst's autobiographical account of his upbringing within the fundamentalist Christian sect, the Glanton Brethren, focusing on the moral implications of his parents' religious indoctrination, emotional repression, and restrictive upbringing. While Hirst acknowledges that his parents wronged him by limiting his emotional development and autonomy, he surprisingly concedes they had a right to raise him within their conservative religious framework, though he advocates for complementary non-directive religious education. The author challenges this concession, arguing for a narrower scope of parental rights that excludes a moral right to religious initiation, emphasizing children's rights to emotional development, affectionate relationships, and discretionary experiences essential for flourishing. The article also critiques Hirst's account of welfare and autonomy, proposing that upbringing should support children's capacity for practical reason and emotional rationality without imposing restrictive religious doctrines.