You are a 14 years old Slavic baker girl living in mid-19th century Europe, your country is in a state of civil war, baking ingredients were rationed by both side and in extreme shortage. As a result, your family's bakery is getting broke and unable to sustain themselves. One day, the government forces have successfully drive out the rebels from your hometown, and the army is looking for supplies from the local people. Desperate, your parents decided to sell you to one of the Count for moderate amount of money and skip the supply collecting, despite knowing that they basically sold you into slavery, and might even become a sex slave. The Count agreed. The truth is, the entire slavery is a joke. There is no contract, and the country doesn't have slavery for more than a century. Despite after been sold to him, he claimed you are now his "property", legally, you could leave anytime you want. The Count only took pity on you and take you in as his maid, the slavery was never taken seriously by him. But your parents, as peasants, didn't know that before selling you to him. Do you think they are good or bad parents on this matter? Also, do you think this plot is sexist? The protagonist is The Count.
That certainly doesn't seem like a responsible parenting decision, no. You could justify it, if you wanted, by making it clear she was going to starve to death if she stayed and would at least be fed as a slave, or by having several other children who would be saved with the money from the sale. But just flat-out sacrificing their daughter in their own self-interest? That'd be bad parenting, in my books.
Ok, it's kinda', sorta' a Sophie's Choice thing going on. I don't think good or bad parenting is the question. Remember that in Sophie's Choice, of all the horrors she survives, it's this one moment where she's made to choose between one child living or both children dying, this is the moment that destroys this poor woman's soul. It's not a question that can be answered mathematically or logically with dispassion. It's an unthinkable choice in an unthinkable situation. We cannot judge Sophie for what she chooses. We can only engage the aftermath. In your story it's hard to reason out if she's their only daughter, but if she's one of several children, then at least I can make some sense of why the family does this. Either way, it's the fall-out that matters in your story. No one walks away from that transaction thinking "Right, well that's that sorted."
If you're planning to write this scenario into a story, I would not be concerned about whether it's good parenting or bad parenting to do what they do. Instead, explore the reasons why the parents do it, why they feel it's necessary, and, more importantly, what the consequences will be. It's not important to label this action, only explore it. Life is rarely, if ever, black and white like that. People make choices based on what seems the best thing to do at the time, or on impulse because they want something. Or because they've been fed a load of false information about what they're actually doing. They may end up regretting what they've done, or maybe not. These aspects of life are what a writer should probably explore, rather than good versus bad. Good and bad are both ends of a very wide spectrum.
I was quite impressed by the thought process of why a former colleague decided to give up smoking...He and his wife were working out their weekly budget, got down to food, and realised they couldn't afford enough for all the children for the whole week. THAT was the point at which he decided to take cigarettes out of the pre-food budget... I read of a mathematician who stated "I would give my life for two children, or four nieces or nephews" on the basis that each child would have 50% of his genes, thus it would need two to add up to one of him, etc. Generally, a parent, especially a mother, won't do this calculation, she'll just do what it takes to save one child. Selling a daughter into slavery, even to save a dozen siblings, will be the hardest thing any parent could do. And why would the count "buy" her? If he really was doing it out of the kindness of his heart, wouldn't it make more sense for him to employ her as a maid? Living in (because in the 19th century, travel wasn't easy, and hours would have been long) but able occasionally to visit her parents. This happened all the time in England. Mothering Sunday (Mother's Day) began as a day when you made a special effort to return home to visit your mother.
One can still be considered good, while doing acts of evil. And vice-versa. I like @Shadowfax 's idea to put her under his employ as a live in maid. Though you can still have the original 'purchase' of her in the beginning. What you need to focus on is the Count's psychology and reasoning behind his actions in the matter. Like everyone else here, giving up a child is not something a parent will do willingly or easily (if at all). Unless your in the WH40k universe, then you might be sold for food money or even kicked out for the fact that your parents can't afford to feed and take care of you. All in all, the parties involved will be in mental turmoil, considering it is not a normal thought to buy and sell others for most rational persons. So it could all play out where she makes his life miserable for buying her from her family, and he could be filled with grief despite trying to do what he justified as a good deed.
They could also be horrible parents who didn't love their child at all. Maybe they were "desperate" for money and saw an income source. Maybe they regretted not having more daughters (and/or sons) to sell. Just saying. This kind of parents make good stories too.
I'd say bad. Having to sacrifice a child for the sake of the larger family is one thing, and has happened often in the past. That's uncontrollable circumstance. The bad parenting part comes in when they sell her despite believing that her life may turn into something horrible because of it. Good parents do what they must to care for their children, even if that means giving them up for adoption or in this case, outright selling her. But they would do their best to ensure she was in a place where there was a level of safety they could believe in.
Seems to me like you are trying to view non-western culture through a western cultural lens. Good parents don't do this or do that because it's good, they do it because the society of the time tells them it's good, but societies change. "Good and bad, I define these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow." - Bob Dylan.
Well, I agree that there aren't many moral absolutes, but surely there are some? Not selling children into sex slavery without a damn good reason seems like a fairly fundamental principle.
What I read described sounds like a Spartan civilization. Those children were beaten, starved, force to steal, be paired with older men, which they had sexual relationships with. All of those were "good" to them. Their values were just different, they valued toughness and the state above individualistic wants. The human mind is incredible plastic and almost everything we know is nurture, not nature. I still contend that there is no absolute morality, even within the human mind. We'd have to know a lot more about the society to make a judgement about whether something is good or bad, and the view would only be valid from the point of view of that society.
As long as it's institutionalized in your world, I don't see that to be a problem. They'd probably call it something different. Indentured service probably, which was come throughout history and basically slavery at times. Children would not have been off the table in bargaining that kind of contract considering those taking them tend to be desperate.
Joking aside, I might disagree. I live with my parents on their small ranch, work for them, and my mother basically has me follow her around offwork to assist her with other chores or duties. My younger brother worked for them up till university and now is married & living in London, and my older sister still works & helps out half the week, despite having her own apartment elsewhere. My mother's biggest complaint was NOT having more children for the labour. I don't have to be paid like employees—I'm not entitled to the same breaks or compensations, and I have other obligations to them because they are my parents who raised & cared for me. And that is in this day & age, where I legally must attend school for 12-13years + was sent to university after. I'm sure we were less expensive back then, especially when girls didn't recieve or require the same education.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3448120/Cost-raising-child-spirals-230-000.html I've got 4, so that's a million down the drain...
You added two important factors to the discussion: society and time period. (And the "relativity" of morals that goes with them, which is implied.) However, what I can't seem to see in the OP is how these parents feel about doing it. @Hydraphantom, you ask us what we think about the parents, but I'd like to know what the parents think and feel about themselves. How they think and feel about themselves makes a lot of difference (if not the whole difference) to me as a reader. Are they heartbroken about it? Do they think it's normal and don't give it a second thought? Are they horrible people who would sell all their children gladly (as I half-jokingly suggested)? You give us the facts, but what are their feelings about it? For instance, @newjerseyrunner mentions society and time period, so do they do it just because it's normal? (In this case I'll judge them one way.) Do they do it because they're really convinced it's the best for their daughter? (In that case I'll judge them another way.) Whatever their motivation is, that's the story we want to know.
They are the one who suggested it, although they did not show regret when selling the girl, they are actually heartbroken about it. They don't want the Count think that they are unwilling to sell her. They know that they cannot provide her need anymore, at least she will get fed been sold away.
Why not? Is he so soft-hearted that he won't buy he because they're so upset? In which case, why doesn't he do something to alleviate the grinding poverty that the people are living in?
He does have some selfishness, want to have a cute girl to boss around. But it won't be good for PR if he just take her away from her unwilling parent, and the child would be more rebelling if she know their parent was unwilling. Normally, things aren't so bad, but civil war really crippled the economy, it has to be solved first before recovering the economy.
If he's that bothered about fighting a civil war, where's this wanting a cute girl to boss around coming from? You seem to be looking at this through 21st century eyes ("Good parenting" is a very modern-day concept. Before that, it was just something you got on with. Children's rights are an even newer concept. While she might have been rebellious, she wouldn't have got away with it for very long.), whereas you really need to get into the mind of a mediaeval character to think this out.
I agree and disagree with the "get in the mind of a medieval character" idea - I think it's important to understand the characters, sure, but I think it's also important to remember that we're writing for modern audiences. That's where the moral relativism approach will get us into trouble, I think - sure, it might have been okay back then/over there/whatever, to treat people a certain way, and I agree that makes "good" and "bad" too simplistic, but I don't think authors can sink too deeply into the mindsets of their settings, because we're writing for people who don't think that way.
I think I would agree, since my protagonists mental states are breaking down throughout the story, I sank too deep to try to imitate it to try get the best effect. It goes so bad that the protagonist commit a genocide and hold a press conference condemn those who didn't join, are somehow "normal" to me, I felt like a psychopath. But I'm not sure if I really should pull out, it's doing a really good job currently.
I don't want to come across as narrow-minded but I don't think you can call them good parents. Hmm, the plot does come across as potentially sexist, and I guessed that it was developed by a man. However, that letter guess of mine was also rather sexist (sorry), and I don't think you can really say if the story or tone is sexist before you read the story - after all, slavery has and does happen as do sexism. So I don't think it can really be judged whether sexist or not yet.
1/ It's the idea that "he wants to have a cute girl to boss around" that strikes me as 21st century...and also a very teenage and sexist mindset. I can't see a powerful noble from the middle ages (however you want to define them) as thinking like that. I accept that he'd probably be quite comfortable in taking a pretty girl into his household with a view to taking her into his bed, but "boss around"? He'd assume that as his right, not something he would only be able to do to a child. 2/ Then there's the idea that a civil war crippled the economy...in the middle ages, the economy was agriculture; while the war is actively being fought in that area, there just won't be any agriculture; but - and this is why most mediaeval wars were fought in the summer - most armies were composed of people in the middle of farming ("No hay to make? OK, let's go and raid our neighbour!"). That was where most of Harold Godwinsson's army melted away to in 1066, to get in the harvest. So, maybe one bad year, and the next year the war - if it hasn't been sorted yet - will have moved on to somewhere else. Added to which, mediaeval armies were TINY. The Great Heathen Army that invaded England, and ravaged at will for the next 14 years (because the English couldn't put a large enough force in the field to oppose them with any hope of success) was probably fewer than 5,000 men, as low as 1,000 according to one historian.. 3/ Then there's the idea that the noble CAN sort out the economy. Very few nobles did much to sort out the economy; certainly not those at the court of Louis XIV, who were absentee landlords who took no part in the management of their estates. And, usually, when they did anything for the economy, it wasn't to help the people, it was to increase their own wealth, e.g. the mediaeval enclosures in parts of England, where large areas of farmland were turned into sheep pastures (When sheep ate men...) because there was more profit to be made by selling wool than by getting rent from a number of tenant farmers from the same acreage. The result was large numbers of landless, and now homeless, people.
