Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Are There Parental Moral Obligations?

SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2016 11:09:29 PM
Posted: 2 days ago
In other words, do parents have a moral obligation to take care of their children? If so, why?

Obviously, the instinctual answer is yes, but I'm curious to know how different people justify it.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 2:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
We have a moral obligation to care for all life, even the life we take should be done with respect. I'm thinking animals here, aka food.
Adults have a moral obligation to care for children. If they happen to be their children....

The principle is, living things have moral obligations to other living things.
Even the lion that eats me. Nothing wrong with that, after all, I am just lion food.
Why?
Because that is how it works.
Core principle, no need for justification.

As happens, the real question is, 'to what extent?'.
Do I have the same moral obligation to put food in the mouths of my neighbor's children as my own children?
No, different obligation. I am the cause of my children, not the cause of my neighbor's children.

In the U.S., parents have abdicated their responsibility for their children to the state.
I have been told by parents "Somebody has to feed these children".
Not, "How do I feed these children?".

The state has allowed, even encouraged, parents to shirk their moral obligation to their own children.

I have a special moral obligation for things that I caused, or own. If I own guns, I have a moral obligation to see they do no harm, that is greater than my moral obligation for guns my neighbor may own.
Again, these are core beliefs, need no justification.
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 2:21:07 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
I would say an adult has a moral obligation to any child, and a man to nearly any woman (so long as she's not a total btch).

Not sure where I get that from. Perhaps in some belief that the world was given to us all equally. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - I guess.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 3:17:46 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
At 11/30/2016 11:09:29 PM, SolonKR wrote:
In other words, do parents have a moral obligation to take care of their children? If so, why?

Obviously, the instinctual answer is yes, but I'm curious to know how different people justify it.

Both above posts re-inforce what the OP said - it's instinctually obvious, but if you start to think 'why' it all falls down!

I think that this definitely belongs in the philosophy forum, not the science forum because from a scientific, Darwinian point of view the answer is trivial; namely it is only parents that care for their children that will have grandchildren. (When thinking about natural selection it is often better to think about grandchildren rather that children when considering whether some gene or trait is beneficial or not).

I think we can safely assume that moral nihilists make lousy parents and have few grandchildren!

Philosophically, I think one has two options. a) Assume one's intution is correct and it is moral to look after offspring and any proof thereof can wait or b) because a duty of care has not been proven to exist, assume the duty of care does not exist.

Obviously in practice people choose a) (note: not 'choose' in a the sense of sitting down and thinking about it, it's just what they end up doing). b) is actually a special case of the argument often used against the existence of objective morality in all its forms, espcially here on DDO. While often b) is often asserted, few people actually live or behave according to it.

So I think it is (almost certainly) moral to look after offspring. However the proof thereof will have to wait until more people accept the principle of objective morality and we have worked out the details... It is at very least the more prudent option! :)
Devilry
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2016 3:30:15 PM
Posted: 1 day ago
There's no need for a 'why'. All personal philosophy is, at its heart, tautological. Instinct - and choice - are enough.

What one should concern themselves with is applying their philosophy and correcting errors in their moral computations.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.