Kevin's Watch

My dad, and in some part my stepmom as well, have sacraficed a lot in their own lives, in order to bring me up, and provide me the knowledge I needed to get by in the world.

I think in part, I honor them by not repeating any mistakes that they've made a point of making me aware of. I also think in part, that I honor them by making best use of those opportunities, to be happy in life, and to pursue better and better things from my life.

They've also told me, that should they become a burdensome obligation in their later years, that we (me and my siblings) shouldn't let them become too unwieldy a burden. On the very same hand though, it seems that they deserve something from me based on their sacrafices.

Question is, which is the better way to reward your parents, through self inflicted hardship, or self inflicted accomplishment, when those two things cannot be simultaneously acheived?

Just a thought for pondering, as I don't have a certianty on what is right and wrong, only a certianty that it's something worth pondering.

i would go with accomplishment. that puts you in a better place to help them should they need it.

What obligations do children have towards their parents?

None.

James wrote:What obligations do children have towards their parents?

None.

i would say at the least children have the same contract as they due with society. follow the law, be a productive member of society.

James wrote:What obligations do children have towards their parents?

None.

Not sure what to make of this.
Have you had any children of your own (that you have raised)? (I have 3, incl. 1 teen)

As a bald-faced statement it is the height of ingratitude.

We owe a debt we can hardly calculate to our parents; one we can only begin to appreciate when we begin the same path of self-sacrifice in raising children of our own.

This demand to acknowledge that debt is enshrined in every ancient tradition, even if our modern society spits on it - from the 10 Commandments (Judaism-Christianity-Islam) to the Analects of Confucius. I'll bet that even the Bhagavad Gita has something on it.

I think James' statement is intended as objective fact, in which context it is correct: there are no obligations, owed by anyone for anything. However, Sarge is right in bringing up the social contract--one might say it is optional (all aspects of society and culture are artificial, after all) but necessary for certain levels of quality of life. Obligation to parents then takes the same position as obligation to any person who helps/provides for us.

I don't believe in any obligation that is not entered into voluntarily. Since you had no choice in your birth, I do not believe it creates an obligation from you to your parents.

When people talk about involuntary obligations, what they are really talking about is slavery.

then we should cast children into the woods? even if you don't volunteer for life, you have an obligation. anything else leads to chaos.

sgt.null wrote:then we should cast children into the woods?

No. Parents have an obligation to their children*.

even if you don't volunteer for life, you have an obligation. anything else leads to chaos.

Why?

*except perhaps in some rare, extreme cases.

sgt.null wrote:then we should cast children into the woods? even if you don't volunteer for life, you have an obligation. anything else leads to chaos.

I disagree. For the most part what is good for the individual is also good for the group. If there were more "selfish" actions made, I think there would be fewer problems.

My personal situation, and the life that both I and my Mom has led, brought me to the choice that I do indeed owe her a debt. We've had this conversation many times and it has always come down to the same conclusion. She is most happy when she see's me leading my life with the positive values and thinking processes that she taught me not only herself, but also how to teach myself. For me, it is the latter.

i agree with balon.

i also disagree with the notion that the individual holds the lead over the group. the breakdown we see in society is because we promote that. sometimes what is best for the group will require sacrifice of the individual. we used to believe that.

Some things ought to be common sense. When they cease to be so, it is generally because sophistry has lead you away from it.

Since many parents involuntarily become pregnant, it follows from that concept that we SHOULD, or at least have a right to throw the baby into the woods. Or as Chesterton put it: "Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like."

We did not choose to be born, and we can not choose to not die. Trying to say that we are relieved of obligation unless we choose it, especially in relation to your parents, is lacking in common sense.

How many theoreticians here have actually raised their own children???

Rus wrote:Some things ought to be common sense. When they cease to be so, it is generally because sophistry has lead you away from it.

This is, perhaps, one of the most profound statements I have read on this site. Thank you Rus.

rusmeister wrote: Since many parents involuntarily become pregnant, it follows from that concept that we SHOULD, or at least have a right to throw the baby into the woods.

This doesn't hold, because they voluntarily risked pregnancy, and all that it entails, when they chose to have sex.

and we can not choose to not die

This is irrelevant. Or are you suggesting that we have an obligation to die? We don't. An obligation is moral and/or legal, not metaphysical.

James wrote:

rusmeister wrote: Since many parents involuntarily become pregnant, it follows from that concept that we SHOULD, or at least have a right to throw the baby into the woods.

This doesn't hold, because they voluntarily risked pregnancy, and all that it entails, when they chose to have sex.

and we can not choose to not die

This is irrelevant. Or are you suggesting that we have an obligation to die? We don't. An obligation is moral and/or legal, not metaphysical.

What do you say to a child of rape (where there was no choice at all)? Even the most lenient treatment of this argument (which has long since left the realm of common sense) would still confer a right to toss the baby into the woods.

Well, yes, actually, you are obliged to die. Even so, some moral and legal obligations are imposed outside of your choice. You can reject them, and be a cad and a monster (morally), or an outlaw (legally). If you are drafted, or the INS comes to your door, or you find a live baby in a dumpster, you will find an obligation being imposed on you that you didn't choose.

Honor your mother and father. Have a sense of gratitude for their wiping your butt again and again, staying up all night when you had a high temperature, and putting up with all of the obligation your presence and childish foolishness and needs imposed on them.

Hmmm, I'm divided. On the one hand, I do believe that you should be grateful for the sacrifices and work of your parents.

On the other, nothing forces you to express it or reciprocate, although I believe it right that you do.

Would you force anybody into obligation? (I wouldn't call death an obligation...in any similar sense to that of fillial duty.)

As for common sense, it's also what tells you that the earth is flat, that you should run away when in danger and save yourself. Many instances of "heroics" and self-sacrifice are quite contrary to common sense.

--A

In the strictest legal since, we are not obligated to care for our parents in any way or fashion.

In the moral sense, we are definately obligated to care for the people who raised us, with at least the level of care shown by the parents; to do otherwise is the height of selfishness.


James:

Specifically, to say that you weren't consulted when you were concieved, therefore you have no obligation to your parents, is a quick way to nihlism.

I'm assuming that since you weren't consulted when the Constitution was created, and you weren't consulted when Social Security was created, and UnEmployment Insurance, that you won't be availing yourself to the benefits of said institutions.

rusmeister wrote: What do you say to a child of rape (where there was no choice at all)? Even the most lenient treatment of this argument (which has long since left the realm of common sense) would still confer a right to toss the baby into the woods.

I already covered that: "*except perhaps in some rare, extreme cases." But really, there's not much point in discussing these rare extremes... treat the life threatening wound before worrying about the manicure, so to speak. I'm sure you would agree since common sense dictates that this circumstance is enough of an outlier to hardly be an issue.

Well, yes, actually, you are obliged to die.

No, you really aren't. This isn't something that needs to be debated... it just comes down to the definition. If you insist on using the word 'obligation' to include all that is unavoidable, then we are wasting our time because we aren't discussing the same thing at all.

Honor your mother and father. Have a sense of gratitude for their wiping your butt again and again, staying up all night when you had a high temperature, and putting up with all of the obligation your presence and childish foolishness and needs imposed on them.

Gratitude and obligation are two very different things.

Specifically, to say that you weren't consulted when you were concieved, therefore you have no obligation to your parents, is a quick way to nihlism.

No it isn't.

I'm assuming that since you weren't consulted when the Constitution was created, and you weren't consulted when Social Security was created, and UnEmployment Insurance, that you won't be availing yourself to the benefits of said institutions.

Well as it happens, I am an anarchist. That said, I think everyone is perfectly justified to get everything they can out of the system. The state will take (with force) from you your whole life--get as much of it back as you can!

Avatar wrote:Hmmm, I'm divided. On the one hand, I do believe that you should be grateful for the sacrifices and work of your parents.

On the other, nothing forces you to express it or reciprocate, although I believe it right that you do.

Would you force anybody into obligation? (I wouldn't call death an obligation...in any similar sense to that of fillial duty.)

As for common sense, it's also what tells you that the earth is flat, that you should run away when in danger and save yourself. Many instances of "heroics" and self-sacrifice are quite contrary to common sense.

--A

Agree, there are different senses of obligation here, and I'm willing to restrict it to moral/legal obligation. Legal obligation originates as a social sense of the moral, and gradually degrades to an instrument of the powerful and wealthy, but in that origin, they come form the same source.
Legal is simply the society enforcing its morals on you - against this, the cult of the individual (the ego) kicks hard. It wants to be the ultimate arbiter of everything (in other words, God).

Also agree that examples of heroics are the subjugation of common sense to the moral sense (although I would insist that those are exceptions).

The Russian for c.s. is "zdravy smysl", which translates out as "healthy thought" (hope we can agree that thought can be diseased. Used to be axiomatic, but these days...).

James wrote:

rusmeister wrote: What do you say to a child of rape (where there was no choice at all)? Even the most lenient treatment of this argument (which has long since left the realm of common sense) would still confer a right to toss the baby into the woods.

I already covered that: "*except perhaps in some rare, extreme cases." But really, there's not much point in discussing these rare extremes... treat the life threatening wound before worrying about the manicure, so to speak. I'm sure you would agree since common sense dictates that this circumstance is enough of an outlier to hardly be an issue.

Well, yes, actually, you are obliged to die.

No, you really aren't. This isn't something that needs to be debated... it just comes down to the definition. If you insist on using the word 'obligation' to include all that is unavoidable, then we are wasting our time because we aren't discussing the same thing at all.

Honor your mother and father. Have a sense of gratitude for their wiping your butt again and again, staying up all night when you had a high temperature, and putting up with all of the obligation your presence and childish foolishness and needs imposed on them.

Gratitude and obligation are two very different things.

Specifically, to say that you weren't consulted when you were concieved, therefore you have no obligation to your parents, is a quick way to nihlism.

No it isn't.

I'm assuming that since you weren't consulted when the Constitution was created, and you weren't consulted when Social Security was created, and UnEmployment Insurance, that you won't be availing yourself to the benefits of said institutions.

Well as it happens, I am an anarchist. That said, I think everyone is perfectly justified to get everything they can out of the system. The state will take (with force) from you your whole life--get as much of it back as you can!

I imagine arguing is pointless. I'll just say that I don't agree on the rape question - it is merely an extension of the same principle. (If you have a principle, what is the basis on which you are making an exception? Convenience?)

On restricting the meaning of 'oblige', I'll add to what I said in my response to Avatar that all free will choices have consequences that affect others and frequently oblige (force) them to do something, so even death really is an obligation in the narrower sense. I'd leave it out, but it's something that people desperately need to be reminded of.

On nihilism and anarchism. Yes it is. (Thank you, Rawedge Rim!)
You'll take what you can from this life like a vacuum cleaner. Then you'll die and your meaning ends. Why should I get back as much as I can? As soon as you factor in death it becomes meaningless. Thus, nihilism. Your philosophy leads to death - suicide or murder. Convince me why I should live!

In his book Manalive, Chesterton presents a fascinating character -Innocent Smith. He does many seemingly crazy things; all have a purpose. Skipping those interesting details, at one point in speaking to a nihilistic professor (where the professor was academically expounding on the ultimate meaninglessness of life), he pulls a gun on the professor and fires. Now why do you suppose he did that?

Oh, and where's my gun...?