Children’s rights rest on present humanity rather than future adult status.

Evidence

The argument of The Child’s Right to Respect — published a decade later, after ten more years of practice — is more philosophical and more radical. Korczak argues that children have rights not because they are future adults, and not because they are innocent beings deserving of protection, but because they are human beings now. This is the foundational move: shifting the justification for children’s rights from their future status to their present humanity. — , The Rod and the Child, 8848

Categorization

• DEFINE: This is Korczak’s foundational conceptual move in children’s rights theory.
• XREF: Connects to modern debates about personhood and rights justification in the broader human-rights canon. — connects to: Any rights theory excluding children also excludes sleeping adults and impaired persons — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 7732; Parental authority is fiduciary, generating duties toward children, not property rights against interference. — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 7838; Grounding children’s rights in present humanity makes them full rather than conditional. — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 8849

Related

• Grounding children’s rights in present humanity makes them full rather than conditional. (similarity 0.91)
• Korczak’s view of children foreshadowed the CRC by over fifty years (similarity 0.83)
• Any rights theory excluding children also excludes sleeping adults and impaired persons (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Grounding children’s rights in present humanity makes them full rather than conditional. #corroborates (0.90) — , The Rod and the Child, 8849