Why Do We Judge Parents for Putting Kids at Perceived But Unreal Risk?

Shows a toddler in Mongolia--probably younger than two--tethered to a bed in a tent all day while her parents work in the field. She gets checked up on at lunch time when her parents come back (and probably other times).

Such actions are routine in other cultures.

Your judgment of morality should not be allowed to impact your judgment of the risk to a child, because that impact is based on your own assumptions. Those assumptions are highly unreliable, unlike factual risk assessment.

If you need a reminder of why assumptions like yours are unreliable, here's a very short read that drives the point home: https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/66889970151/...

I wouldn't let my kid do it here in US. Not because I wouldn't trust them or think it is dangerous. But because I am afraid what neighbors, school, CPS would do.

My co-worker let his kids play in the cul-de-sac for an hour while they watched from the house. An anonymous neighbor reported them to police, and a sequence of embarrassing calls at work ensued, statements to police, follow up visits from police, etc.

And this is not some dangerous part of the city. This is suburbs, as safe as they come.

But apparently you are never safe from neighbors with an agenda.

And the thing is, there is nothing you can say or do, even if you knew this neighbor. "Well I was worried for the children!". Unless they openly confessed it was because you cut the lawn wrong or they don't like the color of your house, there is nothing you can do to them (well maybe turn evil and report them for other irrational fears -- terrorism "but I was worried about this country's safety, swear heard them talk about buying a lot of fertilizer").

The interesting thing is, once those in power act irrationally about something. There will always be people to exploit that element. I heard from my grandparents how neighbors would rat on each other imaginary things during Stalin's times. The results were usually the neighbors family would be taken in the middle the night and sent to Siberia never to be seen again. This is of course, an extreme example but it illustrates, how irrationality can and will be exploited.

I was under the impression that child-safe pool fences (legal requirement in Australia) have reduced the number of children drowning in the family pool.

I was also under the impression that the various ad champagnes over the decades about not leaving children unattended in the bath have also reduced the number of kids drowning in the bath.

I was also under the impression that requiring all new homes to have RDCs (Residual Current Device) installed has reduced the number of electrocutions of children and non-children.

I was also under the impression that providing various first aid techniques can and does save lives.

As far as I'm aware requiring all occupants of a motor vehicle (except buses, for some reason) to wear a seat belt, and requiring all new motor vehicles to be fitting with airbags, has reduced the number of children being injured or dying in motor vehicle accidents.

Also see: traction control; ABS braking; smoke detectors; PDFs (Personal Flotation Devices); food safety regulations; bicycle helmets / skate helmets / etc; bicycle lighting; step barrier / balustrades & handrails; exit signs and fire escapes.

I could go on.

As someone who leans a little left of centre (but only a tiny bit, I'm a closet right-wing), I think some regulation is a good thing. But maybe that stance just encourages the weak to thrive, thereby diminishing the viability of the entire species. Only time will tell.