Keywords

Four-year-old Pia would like to climb the apple tree with the five-year-olds. Now she stands frustrated on the ground and watches her friends joke and laugh up in the treetop. There is a rule in the kindergarten that only the oldest children may use the apple tree as a playground. The kindergarten teacher believes that Pia is really strong and good enough to be allowed to climb. He thinks it would be okay to make an exception for her. Maybe it will create expectations in other four-year-olds about the same thing, but Pia is special. She is agile and strong and will enjoy climbing. The teacher thinks she should be allowed. He needs to check with her parents, however, and they say no. They believe that Pia should wait another year, like the others of the same age. Both mother and father are anxious for their girl to fall from the tree and be injured. They have heard about a fall from the same tree a few years ago. Now they listen to the teacher’s assessment that this will most likely go well, and that Pia will rejoice and grow from this challenge. Still, they put their foot down for climbing. Best to be careful.

Previous chapters have presented research that shows how children need to engage in risky play to have a healthy physical and mental development. They need opportunities to explore the world off the radar of adults. This is necessary for the children to develop into independent, autonomous, and robust individuals. Then we have seen that children today often lack a scope of action for such play. In many societies, we can observe that caution prevails, both when the children are in kindergarten or at school and when they are at home in their own neighbourhoods with parents, family, and friends.

This chapter discusses two ethical perspectives that can provide conflicting advice when setting the framework for children’s life development. On the one hand, there is what we can call the do-good-ethics, which says that we should create the conditions for positive, meaningful, and empowering experiences for children. Adventure, play, and fun are a prerequisite for children to have a good life. Do-good-ethics addresses how we can contribute to this.

On the other hand, there is what we can call avoid-harm-ethics. It calls for caution. We should avoid activities and actions that in various ways can be harmful to affected parties. Avoid-harm-ethics in the current context addresses the need to protect children from what can be painful, uncomfortable, and harmful, both physically and mentally.

Do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics provide complementary perspectives for the organization of activities for children. Parents as well as teachers and other professionals who work with children need to find a reasonable balance between the two ethical perspectives. From childhood research, they can gain systematic knowledge about what inhibits and promotes children’s development. By familiarizing oneself with this knowledge, one can establish an informed balance between ethical perspectives which in itself may be contradictory, but which can be reconciled in a way of thinking about what are healthy and good conditions for children to grow up.

At the beginning of this chapter, it is also in place to clarify how ethical disagreement may come about. Parents and staff in a kindergarten may disagree on the scope of action for risky play for one child. Should Pia be allowed to climb the tree in the playground? Her parents are sceptical, while the kindergarten teacher believes she is ready for it. This disagreement may be due in part to (1) different perceptions of what the facts are and (2) different ethical assessments of what is acceptable risk. The parents may think that Pia is not motorically ready to climb the tree, while the kindergarten teacher thinks the opposite. In that case, there is a disagreement about (1) the facts. Then the parties may agree on the facts and what motor level the girl is at but differ when it comes to whether the climb will involve (2) a morally justifiable risk. In such cases, it is helpful to clarify the source of the disagreement. It can prevent misunderstandings and lead to a faster clarification of what should be done next.

Two Ethical Perspectives

Ethics is about how our actions and choices affect ourselves and other people. It is common to distinguish between morality and ethics (Kvalnes, 2019). Every human being tends to have a personal morality, that is, a set of attitudes and perceptions about what is right and wrong in the interaction between people. In a society there is also a more or less common morality, overlapping, and shared attitudes and perceptions about right and wrong. Ethics, on the other hand, can be understood as systematic thinking about what is right and wrong in relation to other people. We can go to ethics to get advice on what is the responsible and right thing to do in each situation.

Ethics is important because it gives us concepts and language to speak about normative issues. What is the right and responsible way to proceed here? Morality alone is often reflected in how we perceive and what we feel about particular actions and alternatives, whether they are acceptable and right, or unacceptable and wrong. We have a moral intuition or gut feeling telling us that this is something we should or should not do. We need ethics when we are in doubt or disagree with someone about what is the right alternative in this situation. The language of ethics allows us to investigate and discuss the matter together, and not just stand there with conflicting emotions. Two people may have different moral intuitions when a five-year-old girl asks to be allowed to climb a tree. One immediately thinks yes, while the other has a gut feeling that says no. These two will not get anywhere if they do not have the ability to reflect ethically on the situation.

At its best, ethical reflection is an open and curious examination of what is morally right and wrong in a given situation. The philosopher Dagfinn Føllesdal (1997) points out that the ethics strategy differs advantageously from three alternatives. They can be described as follows:

  • Dogmatic strategy: I have decided that this is the only right alternative, so then there is nothing more to talk about.

  • Emotional strategy: I feel that this is right alternative, so will I do it this way.

  • Traditional strategy: This is how we have always done it, so we continue on this path.

What these strategies have in common is that they are closed and stand in the way of further investigation and reflection. Ethics is about using factual argumentation and justification. Through ethical reflection, it is possible to clear up misunderstandings, identify precise reasons why people disagree, and find solutions that more people can agree with.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman (2013) distinguishes between two ways people make decisions. One he calls system 1. This is the quick, immediate, impulsive, and intuitive way to decide. Most of the decisions we make in a day are governed by system 1. Then we can also use system 2, which is the slow and analytical strategy. Here we weigh the pros and cons and spend time getting to grips with the matter properly. It can be about finding out what the facts are, what considerations are at stake, and what principles we should apply.

Should Pia be allowed to climb to the top of that tree? It depends on several things, including how good she is at climbing, how close together the branches are, and how hard the ground is in case she falls. How likely is it that she will fall, and if so, how seriously may she be harmed? These are considerations that come into play when we use system 2 to make the decision. We can start with a moral intuition (system 1) that says yes or no to climbing and then make an ethical assessment (system 2) to find out if the girl should be allowed to climb or not. Such a slow assessment can either end up with the intuition being confirmed or we must correct it, in light of what ethics and the facts tell us.

Within ethics, we can draw a distinction between the part that is concerned with the moral responsibility to contribute in positive ways in the lives of others and the part that emphasizes the moral responsibility not to expose others to negative and harmful experiences (Janoff-Bulman, Sheikh et al., 2009). We can call them do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics. The Norwegian author of children’s books Torbjørn Egner has captured the two ethics perspectives in the Cardamom Law: “You should not bother others, you should be decent and kind, and otherwise you can do what you want.”

A further division of the two ethical perspectives can be made between actively doing something and deciding to be passive and refrain from certain actions. Then we get these four variants.

 

Do-good-ethics

Avoid-harm-ethics

Active

Take initiative and do good deeds: help, support, encourage, contribute to positive development

Prevent damage through active interventions, intervene to stop processes that can have negative and harmful consequences

Passive

Refrain from intervening, so that the individual learns to master the situation himself

Refrain from committing harmful acts yourself, do not expose others to unreasonable risk, and do not harass and bully others

Some actions may fit into more than one of these variants, depending on perspective. For example, helping a girl to take the first climb up to the lower branches of the tree can be an active do-good effort, but also an active avoid-harm effort, if the reason for doing so is to avoid that the girl stumbles and falls in her attempt to climb. In other words, the boundaries between these levels are not sharp and unambiguous. Nevertheless, this is a useful division to clarify ethical priorities.

The figure above gives a general presentation of active and passive aspects of the do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics, respectively. Let’s use the same mindset to zoom in on ethical aspects of risky play for children. Two fundamental ethical concerns emerge, and professionals and family members need to strike a reasonable balance between creating a framework for children’s opportunities for risky play and adventure.

 

Do-good-ethics

Avoid-harm-ethics

Principle

Promote positive and uplifting experiences for children

Protect children from negative and harmful experiences

Consequence

Encouragement for risky play

Active: Take initiatives to give children the chance to play and explore the world. Contribute to them getting challenges that provide development and the joy of mastery

Passive: Do not intervene when children climb trees or engage in other risky activities

Restrictions on risky play

Active: Intervene and stop the approach to play with too high a risk. Adjust the activity so it becomes less dangerous

Passive: Do not create and contribute to risky and dangerous situations for children

Anyone who cares about children will recognize that all the factors mentioned in this figure can be legitimate and important in given situations. Then there is also real disagreement about what is a sensible and good balance between them. As mentioned earlier, this disagreement can be about facts—how dangerous and risky will it be for the girl to climb that tree?—and about ethical principles—what ethical principles should prevail in this case?

Both ethical perspectives can be exaggerated. When it comes to do-good-ethics, it can be taken too far, especially in its active variant. A person that stands up for others and is constantly willing to make a positive effort for other human beings may end up passivating the recipient. A well-meaning helper can create what is often called learned helplessness in the other. The recipient of help and support becomes so used to others solving tangles and sorting things out, that he or she does not develop the ability to master challenges on his or her own. This can be avoided by ensuring a balance in the do-good-ethics between the active and the passive part. Sometimes the best contribution to a positive experience for the other is to remain passive in the background.

Protected Children

In the first part of this book, we saw that childhood research shows a trend in recent decades where protection and risk reduction dominate. Said with the terms in this book, it is the avoid-harm-ethics that prevails, and more specifically the active, preventive part. It happens at the expense of do-good-ethics, in both its active and its passive parts.

Among professionals, it is especially teachers in schools and kindergarten teachers who provide narratives about the dominance of avoid-harm-ethics. Here are some statements from interviews we have done with people who work with children.

Playground equipment has been replaced, trees have been cut down, the use of knives and axes in the forest is very limited—virtually non-existent—and activities such as the use of hammers and nails is rarely done.

We have stopped making campfires on trips, and never take the children with us to swim. We are always two adults when a child is not picked up within opening hours. We are restrictive when it comes to climbing.

Several parents expressed concern that their children might not be able to climb some of our apple trees. After talking to the kindergarten authority in the municipality about this, they recommended that we do not let the children climb trees, they should rather do it with parents privately. Today, children are not allowed to climb trees in the backyard.

Several previously popular climbing frames have been removed. Parents are more sceptical now than before about climbing trees on racks and the like.

These statements indicate a transition from a past where children would be allowed to engage in risky play, to a present where these possibilities are restricted.

Notions that this restriction may be unfortunate for children are also present in our material. The staff ask themselves if they are helping to passivate the children in ways that hinder motor development.

The staff intervenes faster than before when the children explore climbing skills and are running in uneven terrain and cycling downhills. We wonder if such a focus can help to hinder motor development of skills and can create more passive children in the long run? We work in collaboration with the parents regarding this issue. We walk a lot in the fields, here there is not a well-secured play area as in the kindergarten, yet the few accidents we have experienced have happened in the outdoor area, not in the forest.

Based on the childhood research that we have referred to in previous chapters, there is indeed a tendency towards restrictions of risky play. It is well documented that restrictions on the opportunities to jump, climb, and run through terrain have a negative impact on motoric development. Here a paradox emerges for avoid-harm-ethics. It seems that enforcing its principle of avoiding short-term harm now creates long-term harm in the form of poorer motor and mental development. The next section deals in greater detail with how such a paradox can arise.

Risk Ethics

Earlier in the book, we have seen that children describe risky play as something scary-fun, an activity that is exciting and dangerous at the same time. In order to strike a reasonable balance between avoid-harm-ethics and do-good-ethics we need a more precise understanding of risk, since the conflict between the two perspectives often arises in connection with attempts to determine what is acceptable risk.

An action is risky if there is a possibility that it could lead to a negative outcome. If the girl is allowed to climb the tree, there is a danger that she will fall down and hit herself. In general, the risk is determined by two factors, namely the probability that an outcome will occur and the severity of this outcome. In the case with the girl who wants to climb, the risk is determined based on two factors:

  • How likely is it that she will fall from the tree?

  • How seriously injured can she be from the fall?

It may be that the probability of her falling down is quite high, but she will only be slightly injured, since the surface is soft and the distance down to the ground is short. The combination of these two conditions indicates that letting her climb involves an acceptable risk. It is different if the probability of a fall is high, at the same time as the surface and the fall height indicate that the girl can be seriously injured if this happens. A third possibility is that the probability of the girl falling down is very small, since she is a flexible and good climber. If she should still fall down it is likely that she will have a concussion or break an arm, or both. Here it is more difficult to assess whether the risk of her being allowed to climb the tree is acceptable or not.

Both the probability of fall and injury and the severity of injury can be graded. In other contexts where one relates to risk, a so-called risk matrix is often set up. It can be used to analyse and estimate combinations of probability and possible negativity in consequences.

 

Harmless

Quite harmful

Very harmful

Critical

Disastrous

Very likely

     

Likely

     

Less likely

     

Very unlikely

     

The fields in this matrix can be coloured green (acceptable risk), yellow (doubt about risk), and red (unacceptable risk). It is not certain that such a matrix is directly transferable as a tool for structuring risk assessments in kindergartens, schools and the neighbourhood, but it does bring out the two dimensions of risk. It may also be suitable for putting into words what a disagreement is about. The parents who do not want their girl to be allowed to climb the tree can consider that it is very likely that she will fall down and that the negative consequence will be critical. The teachers in the kindergarten may think that a fall is less likely and that the consequence will in any case also be less dangerous. Once this disagreement has been clarified, it is possible to have a conversation about what should happen next. The arguments behind such different perceptions of the situation can come to the table.

Within research on risk, it is common to draw a distinction between real and perceived risk. There can be a significant gap between the two. A possible explanation for the emerging climate of protection around children may be that the perceived risk of, for example, climbing trees and children exploring their own immediate environment without adults is characterized by horror stories about what has gone wrong in some cases. Media coverage and sharing of such stories on social media can disrupt the risk assessment and create a perception that such incidents are more likely and more harmful than they actually are.

Concerns about possible harms that can befall children can have different sources. In a neighbourhood we know, there lived a paediatrician. In his professional work, he encountered battered and bleeding children who had to be sewn together after unpleasant meetings with the outside world. As a result, the paediatrician himself set strict limits on how his own children could get around in the parks and gardens where they lived. Other neighbours observed this and worried that they were not protective enough towards their own children. From other research, we know that behaviours and attitudes are contagious, especially when an authority takes the lead. In this case, the paediatrician acted as a source of infection for a restrictive and strict enforcement of children’s room for manoeuvre for risky play. Then there are also examples of the opposite, that some parents go in the breeze to let go and let the children get roosters on their own in the neighbourhood.

Long-Term Ethics

We have seen that avoid-harm-ethics lays a protective hand over children and will restrict their scope of action for risky play. The guiding normative assumption is that decision-makers should minimize painful physical and mental experiences for children and not inflict pain on them. This is often an understandable way of thinking, which many will sympathize with. Children are fragile and vulnerable beings, and the world can often be dangerous to them. As long as they are not fully equipped to face the dangers of life, it is important to protect and take care of them. Therefore, it is important to intervene against climbing, handling knives and matches, fighting and other wild and physical play, and trips in unknown terrain, outside the adults’ radar.

On closer inspection, this way of thinking is not sufficiently long term. Avoid-harm-ethics provides norms for protecting people from negative consequences of decisions and actions. For this to be a credible ethical perspective, it must include both damage that can occur here and now and damage that can occur in the long term. One of the main arguments for opening up to risky play is that in the long run it is beneficial for children’s development and that the alternative of restricting risky play may not be immediately harmful but will most probably be so in the long run.

To clarify this way of thinking, we can draw a distinction between short-term and long-term variants of the two ethical perspectives we have discussed so far.

 

Do-good-ethics

Avoid-harm-ethics

Short term

Promoting sudden positive and meaningful experiences

Zero tolerance for sudden cuts, fractures, and traumatic experiences

Long term

Promoting positive experiences and mental and physical well-being in a life perspective

Zero tolerance for gradual development of motoric and mental deficiencies and harms

From this figure we can see that there is an internal tension within avoid-harm-ethics. A zero tolerance for immediate harm here and now can weaken the possibility of fulfilling the zero tolerance for harm that occurs slowly and gradually. The gradual harms can often result from limited scope of action from risky play. There can be an internal tension in the do-good-ethics as well. If the short-term part is allowed to dominate, it can create situations that become so extreme that children are exposed to serious injury. This in turn can mean that they are not given the opportunity to have a mature and robust adult life. The most important lesson to be learned here, however, is that it is not the avoid-harm-ethics per se that puts a stop to risky play. It is rather the short-term version that has this feature. The fear of sudden and dramatic harms that can occur when children fall off trees here and now leads to a general ban on climbing. A more comprehensive avoid-harm-ethics will balance this fear of cuts and breaks here and now against the damage that can occur from passivity and lack of practice in getting from branch to branch in a tree.

Childhood research has, as we have seen earlier in the book, documented that the reduced opportunity for risky play inhibits motoric development. There is a high probability that the girl who is not allowed to climb trees will thus be deprived of the possibility for healthy motoric development. Then the question is how such a condition should be assessed. How negative and dangerous is it to walk around the world with limited motoric skills? The details of the answer may vary, but most will agree that this counts as a significant disadvantage. This shows that the restriction of children’s scope for risky play entails a significant risk of serious harm, which deserves attention here and now, in decision-making processes concerning childhood.

To round off these reflections on the two ethical perspectives, we can say that risky play raises ethical challenges where there are two types of considerations in particular that need to be properly balanced. Firstly, there is a need to strike a reasonable balance between:

  • Avoid-harm-ethics and do-good-ethics

We have seen that there is currently a tendency in many countries to give priority to avoid-harm-ethics when children’s scope of action for risky play is defined. The practical consequence is that children have limited possibilities to roam on their own and learn to master the world. The anti-phobic effects that we have previously mentioned are thus weakened. This shows that, secondly, there is a need to find a balance between:

  • Short-term avoid-harm-ethics and long-term avoid-harm-ethics

The fear of immediate and visible damage here and now can lead to restrictions and protective measures that have problematic consequences from a long-term avoid-harm-ethics perspective.

Summary

In this chapter, we have seen that decisions about children’s scope of action for risky play can be made on the basis of either moral intuition or ethical assessment. These decision-making methods correspond to Kahneman’s distinction between decisions based on the quick system 1 and the slow system 2. Ethics, in turn, can be divided into do-good-ethics and avoid-harm-ethics. A comprehensive ethical assessment needs to balance these two perspectives. It is unfortunate if one of them dominates over the other. Within both, it is also enlightening to distinguish between active and passive compliance and between short-term and long-term considerations. An informed ethical assessment will seek to set a reasonable framework for risky play, where risk is taken into account in the form of the probability of immediate and subsequent injury and the severity of both.