English in filial obligation by https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9 en-us 2016-10-29 12:37:12 UTC 2025-10-30 08:20:46 UTC hello@padlet.com Chair forum's answer s1116997 https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134034577 1.What does English mean when she uses the term "owe to”? Why does English believe that the relationship between parents and their adult children cannot be explain in virtue of an owing relation?

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.Please explain the conceptual difference between "mutuality” and "reciprocity.” Why does English think that friendship is the correct foundation for filial obligation?

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.Do you agree with English? Do you think that friendship provides an appropriate explanation for the moral relation between adult children and their parents?

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. 



]]> 2016-10-29 12:38:19 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134034577 Comments to forum chair s1116997 https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134034860 I agree that parents would do their favor to children without measuring. Most of the parents would not mark down what they have done to their child and think about the reward but treat them from heart and hope them be happy and healthy which are parents' basic wishes. However, I don't think that friendship provides an appropriate explanation for the moral relation between adult children and their parents because your friends do not have blood relationship with you which is independence, you can't assure that they do for you without measuring, maybe for the fame and profit you don't know. Your buddy may help you without measuring but this suituation should explanined by family relationship as your buddy treat you as her/his family but not a simple friend only. Therefore, it is not suitable for explaining relationship between parents by the concept of friendship but good to change the direction of explanation.

Yau Yuen Yee
29/10/2016

]]> 2016-10-29 12:48:56 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134034860 s1116997 https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134892490 it is true that parents have contributed to their children, no matter how much it is. We may call that ''Love''. To me, the definition of ''Love''  is of what Bible says. Thus, love would definitely be debt. Parents contribute to their children free of charge, they ''give'', but not ''borrow'', children owe them nothing. If you give a Christmas gift to your friend, would you say your friend owe you a gift? The answer is obvious. Parents should not expect they can  gain back anything from their children except love, because this is not an investment. But, for sure, children should to thankful to what their parents did as this is human nature.

Cheung Ho Hin 11169978]]> 2016-11-02 18:23:02 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134892490 Comments to forum chair s1116997 https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134977346 I think the same way with the English's opinion that children do not owe to their parents anything. However parents should take care their children, because they born their child. They give them a life, so they have the responsibilities to take care and bring them up. Forum chair mentioned that the elaboration of "owe to", child have not require to born. If they can choose, they may not want to born in the world. Therefore, when the parents give their child a life, they should take the responsibilities. Friends are also no need to pay back to us, if we give them something. Our friends do not ask us to give them anything, in addition to they need to borrow you at sometimes. If we gave the a helping hand, they also no need to pay back, because we help them by our friendship. If they owe to us, these basic on the social norms, and the morality habits.

Leung Ho Yiu 11169992]]> 2016-11-03 03:41:29 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/134977346 Reply from forum chair (4-11-2016) s1116957 https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/135450067 We agree with Leung Ho Yiu that children do not need to owe to their parents. As the relationship of love, parents should not expect to gain any benefits which are repaid by their children. Although they contributed a lot to their kids, it is a responsibility of love. Therefore, they need to take care their children.We think that it is not an appropriate attitude of some parents require the repayment from their children.]]> 2016-11-04 17:01:49 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116997/e3au82j8v6u9/wish/135450067