# data[].attributes.headline
Wong Cheung Ching (respond to Quinn on DDE)

# data[].attributes.subject
Wong Cheung Ching (respond to Quinn on DDE)

# data[].attributes.body
Because I cannot press the edit button, I am going to write here. After looking the forum chair, I feel confused because I don't know whatever people's action is the direct or indirect action. If people did not do anything in choosing which of group, we actually were committed to somebody died. Doing nothing is our action to contribute other people die? In this case, I think whatever what we do, we still have direct responsibility to make other people die. I think this is the point I feel confused.
4-11-2016

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with what the forum chair said in the point 2 because I also think that friendship is the correct foundation of filial obligation. In my opinion, if our friendship are strong enough, we will pay a lot for our best friends without considering any return. It is common for us to hear that some of our friends lend money to their friends but they do not expect they will give money back. It is a solid evidence show that our relationship is not based on return.
At the point three, I also agree that there is difference between friendship and child-parent relationship because the state of parents are higher than us and we should listen what our parents said. Also, we don't have the right to choose our parents but we can choose our friends.
4-11-2016

# data[].attributes.body
We agree with the view point of Chan Chi Chung that there is another difference between parent-child relationship and friendship which is friendship is much weaker. Therefore we cannot explain the relationship as friendship. On the other hand, we agree with other classmates view point of children taking care of their parents when they grow up is not for repaying but because of love. Therefore the term 'own to' is not suitable to explain the parent-child relationship

# data[].attributes.body
In English's essay, also one notable, controversial point is that the relationship between parents and children is based on the found of love. Therefore, we shall not distorted our love when we argue with our parents/children. It is not correct to say 'you should do that in order to repay me' or 'I didn't request for the favor'. These words are harming the relationship even more and does not help the problem. However, it often happens around us within the society. This advocacy of 'friendship relationship between parents and children' need to be known by more.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I quite agree on this essay by English. I think we don't owe anything from our parents as the word of 'owe' is quite negative and refers to the meaning provided by the forum chair in question 1. Although I take English's stance, it comes to me that it is natural for us to take care of our parents when we grown up as to show the love from us more clearly. It is not necessary that one must live with their parents or must take responsibility of the daily expenses of their parents. To show our love could be done in many ways such as paying more time and attention on them in daily life. It is not about repaying anything, it is about to show our care and our love as our parents did always.
28/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
I share the same thought on the relationship between parents and children is somehow similar to friendship as they both founded on the base of love. However, according to the forum chair, due to the family hierarchy, children and parents have different positions that children should always listen to their parents. I understand there will be difference in position in the parent-children relationship, but I would like to point out that children may not always listen to their parents. I don't think filial obligation equals to that children totally listen to parents. And the relationship should include the two-ways communication either which children could express opinion and parents may adopt them too, vice versa.
28/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
I think that there is a big difference between the relationship of parents and children and friendship. Since most of parents must tend to contribute to their children by no any personal reason selfishness and just because of love. Parent cannot expect that they will gain any thing after they contribute to their parents but they would still grow their children up by themselves. However, friendship is not just a one way relationship. Even your friend contribute to you, you have to take a response to him them balance the relation that both of you can gain something in the friendship. When one side fail to give satisfactory response to the other side, the friendship will be collapsed. I think that friend may not keep contributing to you but parents will.
25/10/2016

# data[].attributes.body
1.  From English, the term "owe to" means when you call someone you do not know or barely know to do something for you, you will have the moral obligation to payback as you owe to the person who help you. For instance, for neighborhood who is barely know each other, when A asks B to help him to take mail when he is gone for a month's vacation, B agrees. If, subsequently, B asks A to do the same thing for her, A has the moral obligation to agree as A owe to B.
However, in English's opinion, the term "owe to" cannot be used in describing the relationship between parents and their adult children, because their children did not request to be born. Moreover, what parents do to their children are merely out of love. She believes that a love relationship is not the case of "debt".

2.  The conceptual difference between "mutuality" and "reciprocity" is that  "mutuality" values the relationship of people. People are motivated by love and they do not want to gain any extra benefits from others.
However, "reciprocity" considers about the quantity of benefits. People would care about whether the action is equal and fair for them and others.
In the essay, it has mentioned that "Friends are motivated by love rather than by the prospect of repayment." English thinks that, for friendship, people would not only care about the "return" in the future. They would behave because of the relationship of love. Using this way for filial obligation can maintain the relationship by showing the love. However, if we replace the idea of duty instead of using friendship for filial obligation, it will not exist for long time as we would count the quantity of "return". The relationship may be destroyed easily at last. Therefore, friendship is the correct foundation for filial obligation.

3. To a large extent, we agree with English. What parents do for their children are voluntary sacrifices, which is an expression of love. Therefore, when their children grow up, the reason of them  treating their parents with filial respect is not  repaying them but to show their love. Just like friendship, friends will do each other a favor without measuring.

However, friendship cannot totally explain the parent-child relationship. Since friends share the same position but parents and children are not at the same position in the family hierarchy. Children should always listen to their parents, which is different from friendship.