As I was reading the assigned chapters in my course textbook for this week, I glanced briefly through the table of contents and saw a chapter titled 'What do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?' I was tempted to read the chapter immediately, as it sounded interesting, but since I felt that way about many of the chapters and did not have time to read them, I decided not to do so. Instead, I thought I would write a blog post about the question of what, if anything, children owe their parents. This may be somewhat pointless, as we shall probably be addressing the topic later on in the course, with our discussion supplemented by the aforementioned chapter, but I thought it might be helpful for me to write out my opinions on the topic now, so that I would have a clear basis for possible revision later on.
So - what do children owe their parents? To be blunt, I would say nothing at all, except what (if anything) they think they owe to any other person. My reasoning for this is that children do not ask to be born, nor do they make deals with their parents to raise them in certain ways. If a child's parents are neglectful, abusive, or otherwise unpleasant, then that is very unfortunate and the child certainly does not owe them anything for that. If a child's parents are always reasonable and kind, then that's great for that child - but the parents are acting that way of their own accord, not with any (justified) expectation of repayment. Similarly, the decision to give birth to a child is made without the child's consent or input. Thus, even if the child goes on to have a wonderful life and has a great relationship with their parents, they still do not owe anything to said parents.
Having a child is effectively gift-like in nature; as the child has no input in their own creation, the parents have no right to expect repayment later on. The child cannot even choose to refuse the gift. The child may certainly choose to give gifts to their parents or otherwise help them out, but that is of their own choice and not due to a duty or obligation. As a comparison: person A gives person B a book as a gift. Most people would not consider that person B then has to return the book at a later time, or offer something equal in value to the book to compensate person A for their trouble. If person B did not want the book, but was forced to take it, then it would be doubly unfair for person A to expect something in return. If person A gave person B the book while stating that they expected to be repayed for it in future, and person B agreed, then that would be a different matter. However, without person B's agreement, there can be no deal. The book (or the child's life) remains a gift only.
Fascinating post. To counter your example I have concoted one of my own: person A, due to circumstances outside their control is forced to borrow money from person B. It may not be the most perfect state of affairs that people are forced into the debt of another person, it does happen. Persons born into this world are in debt to their parents for at least allowing them to exist at all and facilitating the bare minimum of childhood. It could be argued that it would be best for the child involved if the parents released them from this natural debt.
ReplyDeleteMeep, I don't quite think that your example is comparable to giving life to a child. The difference is that giving life is a 'gift' and not a 'loan' given that person B (child) didn't agree to the terms. If person A does think of it as a loan, there is no reason why person B, not having agreed to the terms, should have to pay him back. Here, I've modified the book example.
DeleteImagine it in this way - A, because he wanted to, put a book in your house, unbeknownst to you. When you finally discover the book, you start to read it. The book is, in general, uneventful (kind of monotonous), though some parts in it made you laugh, other parts make you cry out of sadness, and some parts, yet, fill you with rage or disappointment. Person A, then, demands, not only that you keep the book which he wanted to give to you, but also that you pay him back for having given you the book in the first place. Though you enjoyed a few passages from it, or even if you enjoyed all of it, why should you have to pay him for slipping a book, that you didn't ask for, into your house?
Thank you for replying! As to your example, I would argue that person A still had to consent to borrowing money from person B. They could have chosen to live (or die, depending on what they needed the money for) without borrowing the money. Perhaps they would be miserable, but they still could have chosen not to borrow the money. In the case of parents, I'm not sure I would say that they allow their children to live; they cause the children to begin living, yes, but allow implies some sort of request from the children to which the parents are acquiescing. As it is, the children have no choice in the matter. The children, of course, can still choose to act as though they owe their parents something, in that they will provide for the parents as they age; however, like the parents' original choice to have children, that is a matter of personal decision without obligation.
ReplyDeletegreat conversation
ReplyDeleteI agree that children do not owe their parents a single thing. Parents have children completely of their own volition, they, usually enjoy the acts that creates the child. The child has their own life thrust upon them, and by the time they are aware of the fact that they had no choice in their creation, they can't do anything about it. Well, they can, but it would likely involve a large amount of pain and cause severe amounts of emotional trauma to those who know them. They are pressured into thinking that they have a gift, even if they don't want it, and that ending that would be a terrible thing to do - some even invoke religion, suggesting that God will send them to eternal punishment if they try to get rid of their 'gift.'
ReplyDelete