Child Silencer Device... Is it Ethical?

[Infected Mushroom]

Children can be very very loud and obnoxious. I once had the very great misfortune of renting a space with a landlord who had two screaming little toddlers. Life wasn't easy.

Now imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child. Once the collar is turned on, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will come out but the parent will get a message on his touchpad (Ring... *looks at text messages... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT?

But is it ethical?

One of my friends has suggested that its unethical because its ''unatural''. He also suggests that this interferes with the child's bodily sovereignty and that it MIGHT (although he can't prove it), cause developmental problems of some sort later down the road.

I think it's fine though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (text messages are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think its bloody brilliant. What do you think?

[Pan Asian Amercian Coalition]

I would buy one.

Not for my kid (in the unlikely event I ever have one), but for the obnoxious toddlers who cry while everyone's eating.

[The Black Forrest]

yeahhh....No.

[The Conez Imperium]

What no...this is child abuse.

[Shilya]

"Unnatural" should not be a concern in itself. We do so much that's unnatural, and quite often it's better for us.

I see more practical concerns. First, that the messages could be missed, second, that messages like that simply don't carry the same sense of urgency. Toddlers scream that way for a reason.

It may be irritating, but it's better than the alternative, which is parents going "meh" when they're not forced to deal with it by noise.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

No it's not fucking okay.

[Trevor Phillip Enterprises]

...who in the right mind thinks this is good?

[Greonterp]

Yeah, sorry, fuck that.

[Infected Mushroom]

What no...this is child abuse.

i said explicitly in the OP that the collar is harmlessly attached

[Knockturn Alley]

Children can be very very loud and obnoxious. I once had the very great misfortune of renting a space with a landlord who had two screaming little toddlers. Life wasn't easy.

Now imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child. Once the collar is turned on, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will come out but the parent will get a message on his touchpad (Ring... *looks at text messages... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT?

But is it ethical?

One of my friends has suggested that its unethical because its ''unatural''. He also suggests that this interferes with the child's bodily sovereignty and that it MIGHT (although he can't prove it), cause developmental problems of some sort later down the road.

I think it's fine though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (text messages are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think its bloody brilliant. What do you think?

Absolutely not! Set aside the ethics, just think how the child would be forced to grow up! Soon they will learn that screaming will have no effect on their parents and they will stop...stop speaking altogether maybe! And they wouldn't shout out even if they do genuinely need something!It would completely mess up their childhood and cause anti-social behavior in extreme cases, withdrawal symptoms, etc.

[Infected Mushroom]

"Unnatural" should not be a concern in itself. We do so much that's unnatural, and quite often it's better for us.

I see more practical concerns. First, that the messages could be missed, second, that messages like that simply don't carry the same sense of urgency. Toddlers scream that way for a reason.

It may be irritating, but it's better than the alternative, which is parents going "meh" when they're not forced to deal with it by noise.

the threat of facing criminal negligence charges should be enough to keep the parents vigilante. Plus the parents can always set their custom ringtone for that software at a really loud noise.

Children might also grow up more disciplined because they would be dis-incentivised from screaming really loudly and throwing tantrums.

IRL a REALLY loud screaming session may bring more attention.

In this suggested set up, a super loud screaming session has the same return as a controlled screaming session (they both result in a text message but one takes more effort). I think this has developmental benefits in creating a less troublesome future generation too.

[Skeckoa]

Children can be very very loud and obnoxious. I once had the very great misfortune of renting a space with a landlord who had two screaming little toddlers. Life wasn't easy.

Now imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child. Once the collar is turned on, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will come out but the parent will get a message on his touchpad (Ring... *looks at text messages... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT?

But is it ethical?

One of my friends has suggested that its unethical because its ''unatural''. He also suggests that this interferes with the child's bodily sovereignty and that it MIGHT (although he can't prove it), cause developmental problems of some sort later down the road.

I think it's fine though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (text messages are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think its bloody brilliant. What do you think?

Absolutely not! Set aside the ethics, just think how the child would be forced to grow up! Soon they will learn that screaming will have no effect on their parents and they will stop...stop speaking altogether maybe! And they wouldn't shout out even if they do genuinely need something!It would completely mess up their childhood and cause anti-social behavior in extreme cases, withdrawal symptoms, etc.

Why would they stop screaming? According to the OP, they still scream, the parents still get the memo that the kid is in duress, they still get attention, just without the noise. When they try to scream, there is no sound, but their parents still come.

At least that is how I understand it. I don't know if i would use it or not, but don't misconstrue it to be something that it is not pretty please.

[The Conez Imperium]

What no...this is child abuse.

i said explicitly in the OP that the collar is harmlessly attached

Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child or children

You are neglecting the child's right to communicate which is stated by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

[Infected Mushroom]

Children can be very very loud and obnoxious. I once had the very great misfortune of renting a space with a landlord who had two screaming little toddlers. Life wasn't easy.

Now imagine if they came up with a new invention. It's a type of collar you can harmlessly attach around the neck of your child. Once the collar is turned on, the child's screams are Muted. Whenever the child screams, no sound will come out but the parent will get a message on his touchpad (Ring... *looks at text messages... Message: ''Your child wants something''...).

It's much less of a hassle RIGHT?

But is it ethical?

One of my friends has suggested that its unethical because its ''unatural''. He also suggests that this interferes with the child's bodily sovereignty and that it MIGHT (although he can't prove it), cause developmental problems of some sort later down the road.

I think it's fine though because it doesn't harm the child physically while it makes everybody's life easier. Also, you shouldn't have to worry about developmental problems if there is sufficient testing and regulation by the government. The parents are also less likely to be irritated (text messages are much better than the bawling) and so this should lead to better parenting. I think its bloody brilliant. What do you think?

Absolutely not! Set aside the ethics, just think how the child would be forced to grow up! Soon they will learn that screaming will have no effect on their parents and they will stop...stop speaking altogether maybe! And they wouldn't shout out even if they do genuinely need something!It would completely mess up their childhood and cause anti-social behavior in extreme cases, withdrawal symptoms, etc.

There's a simple way around this.

The parents would attach the collars when they need to sleep or work or study.

For the majority of the day, they can de-tach the collars. A balance will need to be struck.

[Saiwania]

This sounds too much like something out of Batman Beyond, that one villain that was able to perfectly manipulate sound waves with a suit he wore that cancelled sound waves out. I'm not sure if that would work. But I wouldn't be opposed to a device that would lower the volume of a source of noise to a manageable level. It would be capable of muting something, but it would be more useful to let some noise through.

[Infected Mushroom]

i said explicitly in the OP that the collar is harmlessly attached

Child abuse is the physical, sexual or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child or children

You are neglecting the child's right to communicate which is stated by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

the child still communicates

[Skeckoa]

when they need to sleep

When the parents sleep should be the time that they don't put the collar on.

[Threlizdun]

No, violating one of the most basic rights of children to speak and express themselves is not acceptable.

[Esternial]

Dunno. Preventing children from screaming may very well have a significant behavioural impact. We'd need to test something like that for any psychological effects on the child, and I doubt they will.

Unless you've already worked out a way we can mute a person's screaming without physically harming them.

[Infected Mushroom]

Absolutely not! Set aside the ethics, just think how the child would be forced to grow up! Soon they will learn that screaming will have no effect on their parents and they will stop...stop speaking altogether maybe! And they wouldn't shout out even if they do genuinely need something!It would completely mess up their childhood and cause anti-social behavior in extreme cases, withdrawal symptoms, etc.

Why would they stop screaming? According to the OP, they still scream, the parents still get the memo that the kid is in duress, they still get attention, just without the noise. When they try to scream, there is no sound, but their parents still come.

At least that is how I understand it. I don't know if i would use it or not, but don't misconstrue it to be something that it is not pretty please.

Good point.

[Shilya]

the threat of facing criminal negligence charges should be enough to keep the parents vigilante. Plus the parents can always set their custom ringtone for that software at a really loud noise.

Deterrence doesn't work, this has been sufficiently shown, and even if it was suggested to work, it only works against intent, not negligence. It doesn't to anything against parents who figure "Eh, I'll look later, once I finished this movie/raid/etc". Also, now you're asking parents to replace one loud noise with another loud noise. That'd be pointless.

Children might also grow up more disciplined because they would be dis-incentivised from screaming really loudly and throwing tantrums.

I actually see them growing up with trust issues, if the tantrum isn't answered. And if it is, i.e. the parents reacting as they should, then they aren't disincentivised at all. The tantrum still works, after all.

IRL a REALLY loud screaming session may bring more attention.

In this suggested set up, a super loud screaming session has the same return as a controlled screaming session (they both result in a text message but one takes more effort). I think this has developmental benefits in creating a less troublesome future generation too.

All that means is that the child now no longer has a means to convey a really urgent situation. I also don't see how that could possibly bring developmental benefits. Turns out a toddler throwing a fit isn't something that's conciously done. This is more instinct than anything.

[Infected Mushroom]

No, violating one of the most basic rights of children to speak and express themselves is not acceptable.

Really young toddlers can't speak anyways. They can only make general demands, and they are not prevented from doing so with the collars on.

[Sarigen]

Consistent screaming is a learned behavior, done to get a desirable response from a caregiver. This is one of the reasons a parent should ignore a tantrum, because the child then associates a tantrum with being ignored, which discourages that behavior.

Using such a device is both unnecessary, and harmful, as children should have the ability to talk and interact with caregivers, as this helps in their development. If a parent is so over whelmed by screaming, that they're reduced to using a muzzle, I think it might be time have some parenting support.

[Infected Mushroom]

Consistent screaming is a learned behavior, done to get a desirable response from a caregiver. This is one of the reasons a parent should ignore a tantrum, because the child then associates a tantrum with being ignored, which discourages that behavior.

Using such a device is both unnecessary, and harmful, as children should have the ability to talk and interact with caregivers, as this helps in their development. If a parent is so over whelmed by screaming, that they're reduced to using a muzzle, I think it might be time have some parenting support.

have you ever lived under a roof with one of those screaming devils?

Irritated parents won't make good parents.

[Esternial]

No, violating one of the most basic rights of children to speak and express themselves is not acceptable.

Really young toddlers can't speak anyways. They can only make general demands, and they are not prevented from doing so with the collars on.

I don't think you're at liberty to state that so matter-of-factly.

The sounds young toddlers make can very well have a significant role in the development of their capability of speaking properly.

I suggest you use more hedging in your phrasings or bring the sources to back up some of your claims.