Jane English What Grown Children Owe Their Parents Essay
An Evaluation of English's What Grown Children Owe Their Parents
By Goh Jialing Caryn
In her article, Jane English proposes a theory that grown children owe nothing to their parents on the basis that the parent-child relationship is one which leans toward friendship and not indebtedness. According to English, the moral obligation grown children hence have towards their parents is no more than the kind we have towards friends or loved ones.
She illustrates the two similar, but distinct, relations with the use of several scenarios. In my essay, I will analyze and break down some of these examples or counter-examples by clearly establishing the strength of inference hence validity, as well as the premises and conclusion.
English's main argument can be structured simplistically as follows: all parent-child relationships are friendships, no friendships incur debts, and therefore no parent-child relationships incur debts.
P1: All P are F
P2: No F incurs debts
C1: No P incurs debts
By Categorical Syllogism, her argument is deductively valid. Hence, accepting the all the premises commits us to accepting the conclusion. By accepting English's conclusion …show more content…
that grown children owe nothing to their parents and hence have no responsibility to support (financially or otherwise) the aged folk of society, we would be provoked to question then, where does this responsibility fall? Clearly, the goverment or society as a whole cannot be held accountable for their needs since this would create a vicious cycle of heavy taxes and a stifled economy. For this responsibility to fall solely on the shoulders of community welfare organizations and the government would be one that is too heavy to bear. Grown children definitely have a role. Also, Chinese traditional values instilled in ourselves since young include that of filial piety. This is reflected in the Maintenance of Parents Act which makes it mandatory for all citizens to bear responsibility for our parents. Hence, we have found the basis for us to challenge English's premises and reject her conclusion. English stipulates that all parent-child relationships can be likened to friendships. Friendships, according to her essay, are characterized by mutuality and not reciprocality. Also, friends are motivated to help each other because of love, and not prospect of repayment. This argument can be briefly summarized as follows:
P1A: All P are L.
P2A: All F are L.
P3A: All P are F.
This is akin to saying that all men are human, all women are human and hence, all men are women. This argument is clearly invalid. Besides providing reasons of love and mutuality, English has not given enough support to her claim of likening the bonds between parent and child to that between friends. Apart from consideration of the time and experiences shared, there is also the biological bond between a parent and child that renders it a class above friendship. Hence we have evidently challenged the first premise of her main argument, that all parent-child relations can be liked to friendships. Now, let us move on to challenging her second premise: that a debt is not incurred. Using the example of Max and Nina, she illustrates how talk of owing is apt only when a debt is incurred, and a debt can only be incurred out of a favor. Max goes on vacation and finds upon his return, to his surprise, that Nina has mowed his grass twice weekly in his absence. English stipulates that this is a voluntary sacrifice, much like the ones that parents make for their children to spend time and effort in their upbringing, and not a favor, one which begs another in return. She contrasts this with the alternative situation that if Max had asked Nina to help him mow his lawn and she'd obliged, Max would hence be indebted to Nina and would "owe" Nina a favor for that of hers.
The crux here is that in situation A, the initiative was entirely Nina's whereas in B, the initiative was that of Max's as he had sought Nina's help. We would have to accept that children do not owe their parents a moral duty as parents have not done their children a favor by bringing them up well, and it is merely a voluntary sacrifice that cannot demand to seek returns.
The most significant difference would be that in Max and Nina's case, doing each other favors e.g.
moving the lawn, taking out the garbage are all simple acts which can be subjected to agreement or objection from either party. In mothering a child however, it is a long and arduous journey which cannot, unlike in Max and Nina's case, be appealed to the consent of the child party. It is impossible to ask a pre-borne child, if he or she would like to be brought up by the parents. In English's example, Max would not be indebted to Nina had she voluntarily sacrificed herself, as opposed to Max asking Nina for the favor beforehand. The impossibility of a counter-example to the case of parental upbringing is a serious flaw in English's argument using this analogy. English has committed the fallacy of weak
analogy.
Although relevant differences are inherent in her analogies, English provides many examples such as Oscar & Matilda, the Smiths and Jones, Doris & Cora to show how in different circumstances, talk of owing is proper or unsuitable. Hence, committing this fallacy does do much to bring down English's argument.
English has also managed to pre-empt attacks to this argument by emphasizing a key issue: the sacrifice from parents though significant, cannot be seen as a debt since debts demand equal sacrifices. As shown in her example of sisters Cecile and Dana, the "discharging of debt" entails different and unequal quantities from each sister.
In another example, English likens the parent-child relationship to that between Alfred and Beatrice. Alfred takes Beatrice out on an expensive dinner date, and has made a voluntary sacrifice, in the hope that Beatrice would accept his intentions and take their relationship further. Similarly, a parent care and provides for his child in the hope that his kind intentions would be reciprocated and care is given in return to the parent in old age. English states that in a friendship, the parties are motivated by love rather than the prospect of repayment. However, this is an idealistic stand to take. We cannot assume all parent-child relationships to be healthily robust and loving. This challenges both premises of English's argument. Unlike Alfred's sacrifice of time and money spent on a night out, a parent's sacrifice is insurmountably more and immeasurable. English also failed to mention that Beatrice does indeed, owe something to Alfred on account of the expensive tab he paid. She owes it to Alfred to be at least civil, and observe proper behavior during their date, giving him the mandatory amount of attention. It wouldn't be right if she went for the movie paid by Alfred, and sat with another man two rows away. That is the very least the she "owes" Alfred, but going further to kiss Alfred or to return his engagement, is as English says, is in the hopes of Alfred having done his generous gesture. In the parent-child context, it is the minimal moral duty of children to ensure their parents have basic amenities needed for survival similar to what was the very least that Beatrice could do for Alfred.
Thus in conclusion, our best bet would be to attack the first premise of English's argument since that shakes the very foundation her essay is based on. The most significant difference between friendships and parent-child relationships would be the time factor and presence of biological ties. It is arguable to say that parent-child relationships contain some degree of friendship, but to flip the coin and say that friendships contain the degree of attachment and endearment that is present between parent and child would be inaccurate. The parent-child bond is far more complex and encompassing than simple friendship. The sacrifice made, is also so much greater in scope and extent as compared to the simple acts of exchange in English's examples.
By Goh Jialing Caryn
In her article, Jane English proposes a theory that grown children owe nothing to their parents on the basis that the parent-child relationship is one which leans toward friendship and not indebtedness. According to English, the moral obligation grown children hence have towards their parents is no more than the kind we have towards friends or loved ones.
She illustrates the two similar, but distinct, relations with the use of several scenarios. In my essay, I will analyze and break down some of these examples or counter-examples by clearly establishing the strength of inference hence validity, as well as the premises and conclusion.
English's main argument can be structured simplistically as follows: all parent-child relationships are friendships, no friendships incur debts, and therefore no parent-child relationships incur debts.
P1: All P are F
P2: No F incurs debts
C1: No P incurs debts
By Categorical Syllogism, her argument is deductively valid. Hence, accepting the all the premises commits us to accepting the conclusion. By accepting English's conclusion …show more content…
that grown children owe nothing to their parents and hence have no responsibility to support (financially or otherwise) the aged folk of society, we would be provoked to question then, where does this responsibility fall? Clearly, the goverment or society as a whole cannot be held accountable for their needs since this would create a vicious cycle of heavy taxes and a stifled economy. For this responsibility to fall solely on the shoulders of community welfare organizations and the government would be one that is too heavy to bear. Grown children definitely have a role. Also, Chinese traditional values instilled in ourselves since young include that of filial piety. This is reflected in the Maintenance of Parents Act which makes it mandatory for all citizens to bear responsibility for our parents. Hence, we have found the basis for us to challenge English's premises and reject her conclusion. English stipulates that all parent-child relationships can be likened to friendships. Friendships, according to her essay, are characterized by mutuality and not reciprocality. Also, friends are motivated to help each other because of love, and not prospect of repayment. This argument can be briefly summarized as follows:
P1A: All P are L.
P2A: All F are L.
P3A: All P are F.
This is akin to saying that all men are human, all women are human and hence, all men are women. This argument is clearly invalid. Besides providing reasons of love and mutuality, English has not given enough support to her claim of likening the bonds between parent and child to that between friends. Apart from consideration of the time and experiences shared, there is also the biological bond between a parent and child that renders it a class above friendship. Hence we have evidently challenged the first premise of her main argument, that all parent-child relations can be liked to friendships. Now, let us move on to challenging her second premise: that a debt is not incurred. Using the example of Max and Nina, she illustrates how talk of owing is apt only when a debt is incurred, and a debt can only be incurred out of a favor. Max goes on vacation and finds upon his return, to his surprise, that Nina has mowed his grass twice weekly in his absence. English stipulates that this is a voluntary sacrifice, much like the ones that parents make for their children to spend time and effort in their upbringing, and not a favor, one which begs another in return. She contrasts this with the alternative situation that if Max had asked Nina to help him mow his lawn and she'd obliged, Max would hence be indebted to Nina and would "owe" Nina a favor for that of hers.
The crux here is that in situation A, the initiative was entirely Nina's whereas in B, the initiative was that of Max's as he had sought Nina's help. We would have to accept that children do not owe their parents a moral duty as parents have not done their children a favor by bringing them up well, and it is merely a voluntary sacrifice that cannot demand to seek returns.
The most significant difference would be that in Max and Nina's case, doing each other favors e.g.
moving the lawn, taking out the garbage are all simple acts which can be subjected to agreement or objection from either party. In mothering a child however, it is a long and arduous journey which cannot, unlike in Max and Nina's case, be appealed to the consent of the child party. It is impossible to ask a pre-borne child, if he or she would like to be brought up by the parents. In English's example, Max would not be indebted to Nina had she voluntarily sacrificed herself, as opposed to Max asking Nina for the favor beforehand. The impossibility of a counter-example to the case of parental upbringing is a serious flaw in English's argument using this analogy. English has committed the fallacy of weak
analogy.
Although relevant differences are inherent in her analogies, English provides many examples such as Oscar & Matilda, the Smiths and Jones, Doris & Cora to show how in different circumstances, talk of owing is proper or unsuitable. Hence, committing this fallacy does do much to bring down English's argument.
English has also managed to pre-empt attacks to this argument by emphasizing a key issue: the sacrifice from parents though significant, cannot be seen as a debt since debts demand equal sacrifices. As shown in her example of sisters Cecile and Dana, the "discharging of debt" entails different and unequal quantities from each sister.
In another example, English likens the parent-child relationship to that between Alfred and Beatrice. Alfred takes Beatrice out on an expensive dinner date, and has made a voluntary sacrifice, in the hope that Beatrice would accept his intentions and take their relationship further. Similarly, a parent care and provides for his child in the hope that his kind intentions would be reciprocated and care is given in return to the parent in old age. English states that in a friendship, the parties are motivated by love rather than the prospect of repayment. However, this is an idealistic stand to take. We cannot assume all parent-child relationships to be healthily robust and loving. This challenges both premises of English's argument. Unlike Alfred's sacrifice of time and money spent on a night out, a parent's sacrifice is insurmountably more and immeasurable. English also failed to mention that Beatrice does indeed, owe something to Alfred on account of the expensive tab he paid. She owes it to Alfred to be at least civil, and observe proper behavior during their date, giving him the mandatory amount of attention. It wouldn't be right if she went for the movie paid by Alfred, and sat with another man two rows away. That is the very least the she "owes" Alfred, but going further to kiss Alfred or to return his engagement, is as English says, is in the hopes of Alfred having done his generous gesture. In the parent-child context, it is the minimal moral duty of children to ensure their parents have basic amenities needed for survival similar to what was the very least that Beatrice could do for Alfred.
Thus in conclusion, our best bet would be to attack the first premise of English's argument since that shakes the very foundation her essay is based on. The most significant difference between friendships and parent-child relationships would be the time factor and presence of biological ties. It is arguable to say that parent-child relationships contain some degree of friendship, but to flip the coin and say that friendships contain the degree of attachment and endearment that is present between parent and child would be inaccurate. The parent-child bond is far more complex and encompassing than simple friendship. The sacrifice made, is also so much greater in scope and extent as compared to the simple acts of exchange in English's examples.