6. English on Filial Obligation by I MAU Tsang https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu 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? 2.Please explain the conceptual difference between "mutuality” and "reciprocity.” Why does English think that 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? en-us 2016-10-24 18:49:50 UTC 2016-11-02 21:38:32 UTC hello@padlet.com Responses from Forum Chair s1116910 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132825157 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. 
]]> 2016-10-24 18:51:26 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132825157 s1116910 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132831746 According to Friendship Theory, children ought to do for their parents what they would do for friends with whom they share a voluntary, caring relationship. These obligations depend upon the needs and abilities of both child and parent, as well as the current state of the relationship. If the parent and child do not share a voluntary, loving relationship, then the child has no filial obligations. According to Friendship Theory founder Jane English, the entire language of the Debt Theory is problematic, as children do not, strictly speaking, owe their parents anything. The parent-child relationship is unlike the creditor-debtor relationship in that it is characterized by feelings of love and voluntary friendship.

The source of obligation between friends does not usually arise from one friend being in debt to another friend. If, for example, one friend does a favor for the other, then the beneficiary of the favor owes repayment. However, English argues that favors generate debts, but favors are fundamentally different from what friends generally do for one another. Similarly, favors are fundamentally different from most of what parents do for their children. 

Tim, Tsang I Mau
25/10/2016


]]> 2016-10-24 19:12:22 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132831746 s1116910 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132832765 In addition, friends are motivated by care. Indeed, we would be troubled to discover that our friends were keeping track of what nice things they had done for us and what nice things we had done for them, keeping a watchful eye out for any imbalances that might arise. According to Friendship Theory, we ought to focus not solely on the cost to the parent or on the benefit to the child, but also on the relationship in which the benefit arises. Consider a case in which a parent invests in her child’s education. If the child has asked for this payment, then the investment is a favor and the child owes repayment. If, however, the parent simply wants a good education for her child and offers to pay, then the child does not incur a debt of repayment by accepting the parent’s offer. The parent’s investment is made out of care for the child, and although the child would do well to help her parent later, the child does not owe the parent anything.  
Tim, Tsang I Mau
25/10/2016]]> 2016-10-24 19:15:43 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132832765 s1116910 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132834293 However, I think parent-child relationship is different from a friendship in morally significant ways, and thus a theory of obligations between friends cannot serve as a theory of filial obligations. It is unlikely that parents and children can be friends, it is undesirable. Parents and children cannot be friends because they are not equals within the relationship and they lack sufficient independence from one another to become equals. This lack is not, however, a problematic feature of the parent-child relationship. Rather, it is constitutive of a healthy parent-child relationship. Thus, rather than a friendship, the parent-child relationship is, or at least begins as, a relationship between unequal partners since parents shape who the child will become. So parent child relationship cannot compare to Friendship Theory. 
Tim, Tsang I Mau
25/10/2016

]]> 2016-10-24 19:20:56 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132834293 s1116910 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132836591 Personally, if we owe our parents something because they fed, clothed, and sheltered us, then it seems as though we have obligations in response to acts which were themselves morally required. Our parents are required to feed, clothe, and shelter us, at least for some time. Why would we owe anything in response? After paying taxes, we do not owe the state a “thank you” for the services it provides, nor does the state owe us a “thank you” for our tax dollars. How could moral obligations arise from provisions that are morally required of the benefactors and are not voluntarily sought or accepted by the beneficiary, particularly when the benefactors voluntarily chose to become obligated?
Tim, Tsang I Mau
25/10/2016]]> 2016-10-24 19:28:23 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/132836591 s1116899 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/134933265 I agree with English that the relationship between parents and adult children cannot be described as "owing".  I think that parents are volunteered to take care and love their their children. It is the natural instincts that makes the parents to love their children thus their relationship cannot be regarded as a transaction. Just like in parents and children relationship in the animals have, most of the species do not have the habit of taking care of their parents when they grew to the stage of adult.

Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna
2-11-2016]]> 2016-11-02 20:43:01 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/134933265 s1116899 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/134939835 I do not agree with English that she assumed friendship are built up purely on love. I think we cannot deny that many friendships are built up on the expectation that one will receive a payback or return in future.  Friends do not have close ties of blood thus their relationship is different from family. We can choose our friends. Of course relationships between people which are not built up on expectation of return or reciprocity is appreciated, we cannot assume most of the friendships in the world are of mutuality. 

Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna
2-11-2016
  ]]> 2016-11-02 21:20:34 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/134939835 s1116899 https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/134941187 Actually, I think that friendship are more likely to be reciprocity. One wouldn't be willing to maintain a friendship with a friend who doesn't love and care about them. We tend to choose those who care for us to be our friends isn't it? In this case, friendship begins with the condition of that the one who we regarded as our friends should be nice to us. Those who treat us bad will not be allowed to be our friends as they has fail to fulfill the requirement of bring a friend. Thus friends ship are more likely reciprocal even people are sincere and genuine to their friends. In contrast, most of the parent-children relationships are unconditional. Parent love their children regardless of whether their kids will love them back or not.

Tang Hoi Laam, Hanna
2-11-2016]]> 2016-11-02 21:30:20 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116910/himbniyiq6gu/wish/134941187