What is a Child's Duty to Their Parents?

[dutchdisease]

Title is pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Brontosaurie]

None.

//Boring

 

[Yellow]

I agree that a child has no duty to their parents, strictly speaking. However, I'd say that one significant sign of quality parenting is having children who are more than willing to care for you when you're too old to care for yourself.

 

[Jennywocky]

I agree that a child has no duty to their parents, strictly speaking. However, I'd say that one significant sign of quality parenting is having children who are more than willing to care for you when you're too old to care for yourself.

That. Although I'd feel horrible about asking my kids to do anything for me. It's a weird thing for the roles to reverse, although with aging the way it is, sometimes that happens.

Typically if kids look after parents for the right reasons, it's because they recognize what their parents did for them and care about their parents in turn and want to be there for them. But the parent really can't demand anything; you go into being a parent realizing that you're going to give without necessarily getting anything back.

I guess when kids live under a parent's roof, then there can be 'fair share' demands placed on the child's time, unless they want to move out and provide for their own welfare (which they usually don't have the resources to do). Chores. Some level of respectful interaction. Etc. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing; it teaches reciprocity and community, developing one's awareness of how much one does depend on others -- a good life skill and awareness to have.

 

[Patroclaws]

But the parent really can't demand anything; you go into being a parent realizing that you're going to give without necessarily getting anything back.

Ideally, all parents would realize that their kids may not "repay them" for the time and money they spent raising them. But some parents (especially Asians)(not being racist, I'm Asian myself) automatically expect to be compensated, and there's pressure & stigma from the community. It's 100% a "duty" in certain cultures if they want to maintain their reputation.

 

[Pyropyro]

1. Be respectful and don't dishonor the family's name.
2. Study hard so as to help uplift the family's economic status by landing a good job. The more prestigious the course and/or the University the better. Being simply a "High School graduate" is usually a mark of scorn.
3. Provide money to the family's coffers if necessary (this is also why we have a high incidence of child labor).
4. Take care of your younger siblings (especially if you're firstborn).
5. Take care of your parents once they grow old. This include hospital bills.

 

[Pyropyro]

Ideally, all parents would realize that their kids may not "repay them" for the time and money they spent raising them. But some parents (especially Asians)(not being racist, I'm Asian myself) automatically expect to be compensated, and there's pressure & stigma from the community. It's 100% a "duty" in certain cultures if they want to maintain their reputation.

It's kinda a collectivist society's trait but yeah, most collectivist societies that I know are Asian.

 

[Grayman]

In an eternity of death and non-existence you provide them a priceless and unique opportunity to experience life. How could your children ever repay you?

We enable opportunities to experience life freely by placing no little expectations on our children because we ourselves have benefited from such feedom and we love our children enough to allow them the to have them same.

Sadly, extreme socially constructed idealism in freedom and over adherence to independence without regard to responsibility and community has created entitled children like Bronto.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think it's a good question.

While I'm hesitant to claim any hard and fast rule, I do think children owe their parents a debt, but it is the child who gets to choose how to pay them back. The parent raised them presumably at great expense. The child did not get to choose to receive this benefit, so it's not really a voluntary transaction (complicating things).

You can repay your parents by:
- Having your own children. It's a rolling generational debt by which each child is raised in payment for having been raised. People should not however be forced to reproduce.
- Looking after the parents when they're old.
- Looking after people the parents cared for when the parents are no longer able to (such as I dunno, your siblings?)
- Committing suicide. I'm serious. If you don't think you owe your parents anything for what they've done for you, you mustn't value yourself. While I'm sure they'd be unhappy about it, living your life while also not acknowledging the value of their sacrifice is hypocritical and dishonest. I'm obviously not actually suggesting suicide as an option, just that you think about why it's not an option. Normally when a transaction is not made voluntarily, the person receiving the benefit they don't want doesn't have a choice to not receive the benefit, which makes it unethical. With child-rearing, the receiver of care can always opt out but chooses not to.

I'm not actually pushing that any of this stuff as a universal law. Parents are responsible for the children they produce and I don't actually think they can honestly demand anything in return. But at the same time, I think each adult has a responsibility to repay their parents or maybe even the world somehow. The extent to which depends on how good a job those parents done did.

 

[Pyropyro]

@Hado

I think respect is at least one of the minimum duty of the child.

As for the "Rules", I agree that there are no hard and fast rules. I think we should also factor the circumstances faced by the child and the parent.

If one is in a hostile environment and has an incompetent/corrupt gov't then the rules that I gave earlier might make more sense. If one is in a stable environment and a strong gov't then less restrictive approach might be more suited for both parent and child.

Personally, I had the luxury of not needing to work during my childhood. I believe that it's just fair for me to take care of my parents and siblings.

 

[Thurlor]

I find any familial obligations a bit hard to fathom. By my reasoning we owe more to our friends than family because we choose our friends yet are born into our family. How can there be expectations placed on a person when they didn't choose the position they are in?

So, children owe their parents nothing.

 

[Thurlor]

@Pyropyro


We have two very different ways of viewing the world that I'm quite sure are culturally informed. The mindset of a person who thinks it was a luxury to not have to work during childhood blows my mind.

 

[Pyropyro]

@Pyropyro


We have two very different ways of viewing the world that I'm quite sure are culturally informed. The mindset of a person who thinks it was a luxury to not have to work during childhood blows my mind.

Just to show you a part of my daily reality:

This is what happens to me each time I go back from school while riding a jeepney.

A little guy/ gal who is barely 7 or 8 jumps on the still speeding jeepney (the wiser ones wait when the highway's traffic light turns red). They then give us commuters some grimy envelops for their "fees". These children will then either clean the shoes of the commuters or busk all the while the jeepney is moving. After doing their thing, they jump off the still speeding jeepney (because drivers don't like them) and try to scamper off the highway.

I can't blame them. You see, if they don't do that then their younger siblings can't eat.

By the way, I'm on a more well-off part of my country. I just happened to have a set of responsible parents.

 

[Thurlor]

@Pyropyro


I wasn't meaning to imply it's the kid's fault. The fault lies with the parents and the society. Why have kids if you can't afford to support them?

 

[Pyropyro]

@Pyropyro


I wasn't meaning to imply it's the kid's fault. The fault lies with the parents and the society. Why have kids if you can't afford to support them?

And I agree with you. I've asked that question A LOT of times as well.

Child labor is kinda complicated and a hard thing to combat but I think everyone should agree that it's not supposed to be that way.

 

[Grayman]

@Pyropyro


We have two very different ways of viewing the world that I'm quite sure are culturally informed. The mindset of a person who thinks it was a luxury to not have to work during childhood blows my mind.

To an extent, labor is beneficial for children particularly when their minds more easily molded to learning trades and practices.

Child labor 'in dangerous conditions' is a bad thing and it was why child labor laws were originally created.

At some point, having a child work became almost immoral. This mindset has ruined the process of handing knowledge of trades and abilities from father to son and mother to daughter. It has put more burden getting education in order to survive where before education could be handed down for free from parent to child.

In societies where education is easily accessible and even free, this process is beneficial for increasing choice and allowing for people to pursue things that they are more skillful in and enjoy doing. In countries or just areas where education is only accessible to the rich few, child labor becomes a necessity for survival as it has always been since we were hunter gathers.

 

[TBerg]

As we grow up, we find the world full of inviting enchantment. When we find something new, it comes with a great promise, a promise of fulfillment of our most basic hopes and insrincts. As we find ourselves embarking upon the fulfillment, however, dark clouds and wicked waves surround what we thought was our sacred vessel of safety. Cracks begin to separate between the materials in our watercraft, and they take away our great hope. We try to make repair after repair, but the cracks keep getting bigger and bigger and grow in their devastating impact upon our confidence.

Then a massive wave crashes upon our vessel with a force that knocks us out from it. We have never swum before, and so we begin to drown. Fate seems to want to drag us to the bottom. We grow weary of struggling against the mighty current, and so we grow limp. Instantaneously our world changes, and we begin to be taken to places in the depths we have never before even imagined. But then the terrible ocean tires of us, and spits us out upon the surface.

We begin to breathe again, and the our strength slowly returns. The ocean is terrible, but we are not as scared as the when we first began our descent into the depths. We gain the courage to wave appendages to facilitate our motion on the surface. It is hard, and we struggle to keep up our energy. We see our damaged craft in the distance, and we know we have to get back to it. We struggle to undertake the arduous task, and finally crawl back aboard.

As we continue our voyage, we keep getting thrown from safety, but over time we grow stronger and become faster at swimming back to our vessel. The waves are unpredictable, and the ocean is vast and forebodingly deep, but our abilities become greater. We even learn to hunt ocean monsters with a harpoon.

Thus spoke Poseidon the cheerful Greek.

 

[Urakro]

This thread gives me one of those mind-altering perspectives in which I start thinking of all these various way I really could be a much better son. Now I feel really remorseful.

 

[RaBind]

Parent are just the same as other people. The same rules of ethics as the golden rule and other social obligations apply. Considering most parents spend a significant portion of their lives trying to affecting their children's lives positively, I'd say children should at least have high regard for them.

That's just for normal/healthy relationships though, if its abusive or negative, then just as for any other relationships, it might be better for either or both participants to abandon the relationship.

Additionally although I said parents and children relationships are just the same as any other, they do differ in terms of how reciprocal they are. The benefits passed down from the parent to the children is meant to keep getting passed on further down to their future descendent. So its similar to a mentor and student relationship in a sense. The significance of this being parent's can't necessarily expect the same level of whatever, they do to their children, being done to them, as the sense of duty usually passes down the generations and might not necessarily return to benefit them.

 

[cheese]

You can repay your parents by:
- Having your own children. It's a rolling generational debt by which each child is raised in payment for having been raised. People should now however be forced to reproduce.

Is "now" meant to be "not"? Changes the meaning of your sentence enormously.

 

[Hadoblado]

Caught me

Thanks.

 

[Jennywocky]

Additionally although I said parents and children relationships are just the same as any other, they do differ in terms of how reciprocal they are. The benefits passed down from the parent to the children is meant to keep getting passed on further down to their future descendent. So its similar to a mentor and student relationship in a sense. The significance of this being parent's can't necessarily expect the same level of whatever, they do to their children, being done to them, as the sense of duty usually passes down the generations and might not necessarily return to benefit them.

Right. There's a responsibility, but instead of being directed back to the giver it's "paid forward".

It does mean that if you felt short-shifted by the parental figures who were supposed to invest in you, that debt in itself will not be paid by your kids, and to keep a positive cycle flowing you find some way to give to your kids while finding source/strength from other means.

Ideally, all parents would realize that their kids may not "repay them" for the time and money they spent raising them. But some parents (especially Asians)(not being racist, I'm Asian myself) automatically expect to be compensated, and there's pressure & stigma from the community. It's 100% a "duty" in certain cultures if they want to maintain their reputation.

I understand. I'm familiar with the Asian cultural sense of family responsibility, the concept of "face", etc. I was mainly talking about how things are here in the United States, which is my background. There's pro's and con's to both approaches.

 

[RaBind]

that debt in itself will not be paid by your kids, and to keep a positive cycle flowing you find some way to give to your kids while finding source/strength from other means.

Well I'd argue that the debt, in the same vain as benefits, also passes down generations. I feel like I've read stuff like "children in abusive family's are more likely to grow up to become abusive in relationships" in several places.

The explanation to such phenomenon being that the those who are involved have their understanding and expectations of relationships altered by their own experiences. So it can become "normal" in the eyes of the abused child to grow up to become an abusive parent, because they might come to believe, after prolonged periods in such relationships, that that's the "correct" state for relationships to be in.

Very much a behaviourist explanation, but I do find that behaviourism makes the most sense in a closed system (don't even take into account the individuals thoughts), the problem is that pretty much everything is an interconnected system.

A change in attitude, understanding and expectations as an adult would be much more difficult and require much more energy than simply keeping with tradition and going by what you know.

All depends on the level of expose to different relationships though. I'm quite sure parental relationships are complete unique, I remember reading that having healthy relationships with any other sorts of authority figures can do a lot of good in helping defuse the unhealthy development of the child's understanding.

This leads me to wonder how the different types respond to learning from their parents. Perhaps intps and other introspective types are more likely to change the understanding as they mature and become more independent, therefore they might be less likely to be affected by the sort of responsibility/debt that I've describe. ISTJs might seek to keep the tradition going even if it affects everyone involved negatively and isn't really even relevant to the circumstances they are in.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

A child's duty is to be the best they can be. To fulfill as much as possible of their own potentialities. A parent duty is to foster this in their child while continuing to strive in fulfilling their own potentialities. Both benefit in an indirect fashion. The degree to which both do this in turn benefits all of society. So in a sense, I don't think 'duty' is the right word. That seems to imply a transaction. A transaction is devoid of freely chosen actions that renders an exchange meaningless.

Personally, my tendency is to feel overly responsible but I know when I do something for my mom because I owe her rather than want to (an extension of my love for her). A fine but powerful distinction.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

A child's duty is to be the best they can be. To fulfill as much as possible of their own potentialities.

I wouldn't call it a duty. I'd say it's a great gift that parents can observe their kids' self-actualization.

Whatever relations and degree of care the kids have for their parents depends almost exclusively on their upbringing and effort of the parents, it's not a transaction or slavery, it's a consensual relationship built on trust and affection.

There are no duties, it's the parent's choice to create life, this new life can't be enslaved by its parents just because it was born, it didn't choose to be born.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

That was actually my point that I failed to make clear. A child's duty is first to their own development which in turn indirectly benefits the parent(s). Development as a fully functional and emotionally mature adult will lead to wanting to give back born of a greater capacity to love your parents.

 

[Pyropyro]

That was actually my point that I failed to make clear. A child's duty is first to their own development which in turn indirectly benefits the parent(s). Development as a fully functional and emotionally mature adult will lead to wanting to give back born of a greater capacity to love your parents.

Agree.

In the end we should look at nature. Even in the most complex of organisms one thing holds true, the parent/s has to go into the backseat so that the younger generation can hold the reins. The parent/s' job is to give the offspring the best fighting chance to survive and thrive.