English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Both diversity and autonomy liberals agree that adults have the right to exit from voluntary associations. As children do not have this right, the paradoxical character of the upbringing of children in fundamentalist and ultra-orthodox communities is evident. Diversity liberals like Galston and Spinner-Halev seem to take an ambivalent position with regard to the right to exit, because they want to defend both the child's future right to exit, which requires particular capacities, as well as the parental right to upbringing according to their conception of the good even if this undermines the required capacities. We defend that people need to be at least autarchic, that is self-determining and morally accountable, in order to be able to exercise their right to exit. Since this right is a civic freedom right, the state has the right and duty to ensure that children will be able to develop into autarchic persons. Therefore, our claim is that school education should aim for minimal autonomy and that such education should be compulsory. We argue that this will not undermine legitimate diversity and therefore that Galston and Spinner-Halev should be able to take an unequivocal position. © 2006, SAGE Publications. All rights reserved

Taking the right to exit seriously