|
 |
 |
|
We Asked; You Said
We asked: What do parents owe their children? Once a child graduates from high school, do her parents, assuming they can afford it, have a moral obligation to pay for college? What about once that child is an adult, and say, struggling with a divorce and single-parenthood? Should parents feel obligated to take in an adult child, or--morally speaking--do they have no obligation? And what moral responsibilities do children have to take care of and/or provide for their parents? When one's parents become elderly and in need of care, is it enough for that child to make sure the parents are cared for in a nursing home, and to visit them once in a while? Is one morally obligated to care for parents in one's own home, and/or to help one's parents live independently, for as long as possible help? Or does paying taxes for social security and Medicare take care of everything? Here are the responses we received. ***** I feel very strongly that whereas parents do not have an obligation for full support of their grown children, except I suppose in extreme situations (catastrophic illness, accident, etc), they are obligated to help in ways that can make a difference (down payment on cars, houses, etc., weddings, sizeable gifts, help with grandchildren, etc). Likewise, obligations of grown children toward their elderly parents are also quite strong and powerful and include helping make the increasingly difficult decisions about how to manage difficult transitions and to help financially when possible and necessary. Of course it also involves even more frequent contact and visits. Both my children (and my husband, fortunately) are aware that these important relationships will not be available forever and want to take as much advantage of them as possible, so I meet no resistance when I suggest traveling to the farm for a vacation instead of somewhere else, esp given increasingly health crises that I am sure will not diminish. Dr. Sue Gronewold As a philosopher and candidate in group psychoanalysis, I do not believe in the notion of moral obligation for caring as a useful ethico-political category. It is especially the critique of Kant's imperative and his notion of obligation from a psychoanalytic perspective* that led me to take into consideration the disastrous psychic and psychosomatic consequences which can have such an obligation not only for the cared but also for the caring ones, which often feel obligated to transcend their emotional and energetic capacities. This transcending which is often related to a loss of sense for their own limits. I think that people who have not the capacities and a minimal "desire" for caring for others (without giving themselves up - such "masochists" are more than common in all fields of caring, more in those without formation) have often profound psychical and biographical reasons. Through my experience in psychotherapeutic formation, I know that it would be worse if these people would be obliged by morality and its representatives, or the law. For such reasons, I do not think that we can continue to discuss the question of communitarian solidarity and caring as philosophers or citizens only, without taking into consideration deeper psychological and psychoanalytical perspectives. However, I think that we should be conscious about and raise our responsibility for the others, not only the members of our family, but all the others, especially the marginal, who have no family. But we need to raise such a "sense of solidarity" through paideia, not through some puritan, even obsessive, always also repressive notion of "moral obligation." But I also see the problem of an even more imperative and destructive ideology of (pseudo)competitiveness and egoistic careerism, which does not leave time for activities such as caring. In this system such activities are not at all socially validated, and - related to that - they are considered as lower "female" gratis work. But such a validation of caring on all levels (private, familial, of larger groups, social) can only come through (also symbolic) payment, social and political valorization of such a work and of those who are doing it. As long as this is not brought into politics, I refute each tentative of obligation, be it "only" moral, to take care of whoever. * "Politics between Eros, Duty, and Inclination", unpublished conference paper read at the 10th Symposion of the IAPH, A Passion for freedom, Action, passion and politics, Barcelona 25g to 5th October 2002 Alice Pechriggl It is difficult to find an approach to this question that identifies the proper moral mix of responsibility, autonomy, and care. I have found these two notions, held in tension with each other, the most helpful (I will cite to where I found them, though others and other traditions have developed similar notions): 1. Ethicist William May, in a book called The Physician's Covenant, lays out an ethic of covenantal response grounded in the Hippocratic oath which suggests that a medical student owes his teacher not only respect and gratitude (including financial care in his old age if necessary) but also the duty to pass along the gifts that he has learned to others. Similarly, in some societies, the notion of potlach means passing on a gift you have received from someone to others rather than simply repaying the gift to the donor. By analogy, a child would owe his parent respect and the care that reflects gratitude for what the parent has given as teacher and provider, but balanced with the responsibility of passing on the child's gifts to others, including future generations and non-relatives. 2. In his 1985 book, Protecting the Vulnerable, Robert Goodin took up the question of how we balance our moral obligations to those close to us with those who are strangers (e.g., should we feed the starving stranger or care for our child/parent instead?) He argues that we are especially responsible to care for those persons who are most vulnerable to us, taking into consideration how strong is our ability to affect such a person's interest (which considers the physical and emotional need of the vulnerable person in relation to us, and how he came to be in relation to us, e.g., as donor, as someone who has depended upon us in the past, etc.), and what alternative sources of assistance he might have to fulfill his need. In this view, in the standard case of a needy parent or adult child, both parents and children would be more vulnerable to each other than they would be to others, and thus there would some heightened responsibility to care for the other as opposed to a stranger, but it would not be an exclusive or absolute responsibility. These two notions do not resolve specific dilemmas, but I find them a more morally helpful way of looking at things than a purely status-based or contractual model. Marie A. Failinger Parents have the full responsibility for bringing the human being to life. Therefore they are obliged to do all they can afford for their children, and shouldn't expect anything from them. But, on the other hand, parents have also a duty to bring up responsible new members of a society. It they are successful they can certainly count on protection of their children when they are old. Jozef Niznik (father and grandfather) I would put it somewhat differently. At 18, I consider a person an adult and responsible for their own life. At this point, the parents do not "owe" the child anything. However, if they love the child, they will help them in whatever way they can, including sacrificing for them to go to college. Both of my children took responsibility for their own education. Of course, as parents, we helped with the tuition, books and other expenses. Both children worked at various jobs to make their own spending money and their work was a extremely important part of their education. I would also provide them with help and support through any kind of life crisis - not because I owe them anything, but because I love them. As a parent, I brought them life and nurtured them through to maturity. I owe them nothing, but I love them dearly. With regard to children, I certainly believe there is a moral obligation to pay for higher education if one can afford it. I can't imagine a parent NOT wanting to, as it is part of giving a child the best possible start! Of course, if the child is goofing off, not studying, in danger of flunking out, etc., etc., it's time for a serious conversation. I don't think there is a moral obligation to throw away one's money. With regard to parents, I also think there is a moral obligation to try help them maintain the lifestyle they want, if it is suitable for them. As for taking them into one's own home, it depends on the personalities involved. I don't think there is moral obligation to take in someone who makes the rest of the family miserable. Also, there are times when someone needs care that only a nursing home can provide, and again, there is no blanket prescription for when that is. A classic case would be someone with Alzheimer's who requires so much care that no one else in the family can have a life. I have some experience with all this, as my father and my mother-in-law were both in retirement homes the last several years of their lives; my father could well afford it and wanted to be there; my mother-in-law was on Medicaid and needed to be there, as she had no close relatives in the area and didn't want to move to Utah or Illinois, where were two sons are. Emily R. Gill I think that if parents have gone to great lengths to care for their children, by sending them to college, et cetera, then children do have a responsibility to take good care of their parents. By good care, I mean helping them get set up, at the very least, in an apartment close to where the children live, so they can visit regularly. Paying for social security, or a nursing home, is not enough. That being said, if elderly parents are going to live with their children then have a responsibility to not make too much of a pain in the rear out of themselves. (parents are not typically very good at this.) As for parent's obligation to their children - I think the parent's have an obligation to try to see the child off in the world. But if the good blows it, its his own damn fault and the parent's don't have to rescue him (and by him, I mean me). Alexander Lampros I don't think anyone "owes" something to their children or parents once the children are grown. But I think that most parents want to help adult children when they need help and do help, if they have the means to help. Similarly, I think most adult children want to help their parents when they need help and do if they have the means. But people do not always have the time, money, or psychic energy to help. I think that society has a responsibility to help any person of any age who needs help and does not have a family or friends who can help. Unemployment insurance, social security, medicaid, medicare, foster child care, aid for dependent children, education, food stamps, are all means to achieve this. The helping programs should be structured to be easily and quickly accessible to those in need, to not discourage self-sufficiency, to promote a healthy life style, and to resist exploitation (such as by the health care industry). Joy Dahlgren I think parents owe children a safe a nurturing environment. The children should have love, food, housing, clothing, medical care and education. Once the kids graduate from high school, assistance becomes a choice, not an obligation. In the case of children caring for parents - I think there is more of an obligation. I think the extent of that is to make sure that they parents have the same and their parents provided them when they were young - love, food housing, clothing, medical care. I don't think they children necessarily need to provide those things - just do their best to make sure their parents have them. Paying taxes isn't enough. Carolyn J. Ridpath Yes, parents have obligations to children--and vice versa. But the obligation is not to provide a commodity, which is what college tuition and nursing home care seem to have become. Parents have an obligation to educate their children and to teach them to be responsible citizens. How you do that depends. We provided our daughter with a pre-determined amount for her college education--she had to come up with the rest. The process of getting grants, loans, work, and deciding to live with a car was a better education for her than a thousand college finance classes. By the same token, taking care of an adult child during a time of troubles could be a good thing or a bad thing. If it's short-term and can help the adult child get back on her feet, it can be a good thing. If if it's long-term, it may only be enabling irresponsible behavior. An adult-child's obligation to a failing parent seems altogether different. It's not a case of exercising a responsibility to educate, but acting out how one has been morally educated and honoring those who were responsible for that education. There is no one right answer, but how you care (or don't care) for a failing parent reveals much about one's moral education. Kenneth Guentert There is no one answer or even valid opinion that would apply to all children and parents. It all depends on the "deal" that children and parents have with each other. I heard a good one the other day that basically says we should all raise our children to be independent enough to pay for their own psychoanalysis. I do believe that as a parent it was my loving responsibility to raise my children to be as independent as they could be. That included being independent of the need for the approval of others. However, the strength that type of independence brings, also comes with a responsibility to make contributions to the American society that rewards that independence. Additionally, they were taught to respect and appreciate those people close to them that helped rear and foster them through childhood. Under this kind of "deal", parents can help children and children can help parents without the fear that they will be taken advantage of in the process. You see, the underlying question I hear in your request for who should be responsible for whom is, "When does anyone in the equation feel like they HAVE TO help the others? When the relationship is based on love and mutual independence, two things happen on both sides of the equation. You have all sides willing to help Whatever it Takes to help the other side, and the other side working feverishly to not need the help. Without this basic "deal" in place you are left with asking the question about HAVING TO, and no two situations are alike. I will give one absolute that I believe. It is the responsibility of parents to raise their children so few of any of the will exist after they grow up. I know that all too often, external elements exist that make this extremely hard for large numbers in our society. We need to help eliminate those external elements where we can to make it easier. I worked to raise my kids to do that. Jack Harney To your first question my response is the adage CHILD IS FATHER OF THE SON. But the answer can go well beyond that. It is the filial and paramount duty of every parent that she creates the conditions or circumstances for her children to grow up to their maximum capacity, intellectually, morally [which is value-loaded], and more importantly socially to live in mutual peaceful coexistence with others. At the same time, they should be trained to stand up against the forces which militate against justice, fairness, equality and related aspects of JUSTICE. The standing up should not only be against social groups, but more importantly against the might of the state, as it is happening in the Western world by millions of people vociferously protesting the madness of George Bush and his poodle Tony Blair. Their agitation is obviously not supporting Saddam Hussein, but to convey the message to the American President[s] as strongly and sharply as they can that Saddam's misdeeds cannot be a license to Bush and Blair to destroy that country, then reconstruct it, and then plant the chosen men as rulers. It is generally held that a democracy works by rule of law, but more than US President has shown that he is against law, especially international law. Children should be taught about the intricacies of such aggression, usurpation, and what they are expected to do uphold democracy, if possible, in its pristine form, and ensure, as Professor Etzioni would have, that they build up a society of diversity within unity, where every issue of disagreement can solved by creating the necessary civil space for dialogue and then by informed ad well-meaning dialogue. As regards parental obligation to an "adult-child" in case of crisis such drug addiction, marital discords, etc., in my view such obligation is great and noble so long as it is within the parents fortitude, and material and moral capacity. When all is said, parent-child relationship is not like that of the relationship among Master-Apprentice-Journeyman. As parent-child bond is life-long, it should be encouraged to be so. This will be all the more necessary in the coming years when the West is expected to have several million parents or persons above 100 years of age. As the relationship is symbiotic, there is need to train children to pay adequate attention, especially emotional when they are at the fag end of life. No State safety measure, no old age home, and no contribute by the offspring to them to take care of their parents, medical or otherwise, can be a real substitute to the parent-child bond which should ideally continue in a linear order without any break. As most societies are fraught with man-women incompatibility and generation, it is often and the demand of a wife on husband may be at variance and even conflict with even a request by a parent, and the living space is shrinking day by day, there is an inherent limitation in the young and old in the same house unless they are made for each other, a cohesive group, tolerant, patient, down-to-earth, and understanding. As this does not happen in many households it is still in the realm of dream, idealism, ambiguity, and ambivalence. P. Radhakrishan "What do parents owe their children? Once a child graduates from high school, do her parents, assuming they can afford it, have a moral obligation to pay for college?" If your son or daughter wants to go to college and you see that they understand and appreciate a college education for its real value, then by all means you should help them. After all, our system of financial aid anticipates that in the application process, for a good reason. Young adult students should also help pay their own way, even if that means they have to work and study or incur debt. With college costs being so high, for most families it becomes a team effort of work, better money management and incurring of debt. Most of the time this effort pays off for everyone. What if your son or daughter fails or bails? Maybe everyone involved misread their maturity, but that is not the end of the story. Down the road they will grow and most often, make you proud with or without the diploma. But there is no moral obligation to provide whatever an immature adult, even one you love, thinks she is entitled to. Let them stand up and walk. "What about once that child is an adult, and say, struggling with a divorce and single-parenthood? Should parents feel obligated to take in an adult child, or--morally speaking--do they have no obligation?" If loving your child and offering a listening ear, a watchful eye, love, money and occasional child care is enough for them and their child, your grandchild, then that is all you should do, because you shouldn't do for someone what they can do for themselves. But sometimes that is not enough, and if it isn't, you need to take on the risk of some disruption in your life, even your marriage, to help them get a fresh start, even if they have to come home for a while. Be prepared to be criticized in your own home by your own daughter for treating your grandchild more liberally than you did the child. Expect to be treated with respect and fairness, and do the same. The goal is to get them back out on their own as quickly as you "And what moral responsibilities do children have to take care of and/or provide for their parents? When one's parents become elderly and in need of care, is it enough for that child to make sure the parents are cared for in a nursing home, and to visit them once in a while?" "Is one morally obligated to care for parents in one's own home, and/or to help one's parents live independently, for as long as possible help?" Most elderly and frail people can live independently with a little help, and it is better to worry creatively over Mom's vulnerability than to rush to judgement that she needs to be separated from her home and community. Get acquainted with her friends, neighbors and pastor, find out who else can be your extra hands. It is absolutely the obligation of the children (all of them, not just daughters or the family's anointed nurturer) to educate themselves about senior citizens options, and find out how to best promote independence. It should go without saying (in other words, a moral imperative) that putting your folks in a nursing home (even a "nice" one) should be an absolute last resort. You knew that it was going to come to this, and in your heart, you know it is your obligation to honor your parents, even if it is tough on you. Every baby-boomer these days should be putting this thought process at the top of their to-do list, because before you know it, it'll be your turn to be a care-giver and, all to soon, a care recipient. If you are fifty now and your Mom is 80, your options to get help in this duty are too limited. Spend the rest of your competent life trying to change this, and your children will thank you for not not being part of the current public apathy that forces them to make the same heart -wrenching choice (no choice) that faces you today. Join the AARP (AT 50) and get involved for home and community-based care. If you are too young for AARP, pay attention to the demographics of aging and draw your own conclusions. "Or does paying taxes for social security and Medicare take care of everything?" Anyone who thinks this is enough doesn't know enough. So it is more a matter of blissful ignorance than of morality. Joyce Clemons In my judgment, the only absolute answer to the questions of what parents owe their minor and adult children, and of what children owe their elderly parents is that parents are obligated to perform as best as they can in rearing minor children who will become productive adults, and, where necessary and appropriate, to assist them to the best of their ability when their adult children need their help. Adult children also are obligated to help their elderly parents who need instrumental and/or emotional help as best as they can. But the concrete specifics of parents providing assistance to children, as well as adult children providing assistance to elderly parents, are influenced by various cultural and socioeconomic factors and interpersonal dynamics. Consequently, there is considerable heterogeneity with respect to the ideal and real norms surrounding parent-child and child-parent support patterns. For example, my personal belief--and the belief inculcated in me by my parents--is that parents--including black parents--are obligated to get their offspring through at least college, and, in these days, if desired by the offspring, help in obtaining graduate/professional degrees. Further, parents and adult children help each other to the extent possible whenever the need arises. But even if these norms were dominant, e.g., among most black parents, many of them who are poor and dwelling in urban slums and dependent upon bad public schools with bad teachers to educate their children in the elementary years (where basic educational foundations are critical) are powerless to obtain exceptionally good education for their children. One of the myths which prevailed for many years about black elderly was that "blacks always take care of their old." This myth continued to persist despite empirically valid research which showed that it was not true. Instead, some blacks "always take care of their old," and other blacks, even when financially able to do so, do not. It is, in my judgment, not sufficient to just pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and think that you have done enough for your elderly parents, if you have any. Far too many blacks, and particularly black men, do not live long enough to receive OASI benefits, and many such men do not leave survivors who can receive secondary benefits on their primary record. A much better system today for younger blacks (under 45 or so years) is the partial privatization plan proposed by the Bush administration, so that they will have an account with their own name, the contents of which may be passed on to their heirs when they die and which would not be subjected to any death or other tax. Jacquelyne Jackson, Ph.D. Regarding your question about whether parents "owe" their children a college education, and children "owe" their parents home care in times of illness, I believe that the family is one sector of society that is not based upon economic principles. If family relationships were to be based upon a system of debits and credits then the generations would "owe" each other exactly what had already been paid out by the currently needy generation (or, in the case of parent to child transfers, what future obligations the parents want to impose upon their children). Instead, I think the family is a system of "gemeinschaft" relationships that, ideally, is based upon caring, history, and the desire to create a good foundation for future generations. I think if there is an exchange system involved it is intended to better insure that future generations remain connected to present generations (grandparents to grandchildren, etc.). The world can get stressful, and a little boring -family relationships, even when chaotic, help us maintain meaning and liveliness in our lives. Karen Schwab |
|
The Communitarian Network |