Jane English, a renowned professor in philosophy at the University of North Carolina contends that grown-up children have no familial compulsions towards their parents. English believes that there are essentially two relationships that are grounded upon mutual courtesies as well as friendly relationships. Both these relationships encompass responsibilities. However, according to English friendship and its responsibilities are the ones which govern the relationship of grown-up kids and their parents fundamentally. Precisely stated, the relationship existing between the grown-up child and their parents must necessarily be shaped in a friendly manner. The response that English offers to the question "What do grown children owe their parents?” is "nothing." She takes that stance by claiming that it is misrepresentative to designate grown-up children "owe" because the sacrifices made by parents are voluntary and they cannot be perceived as debts which children need to repay once they are grown. The relationship between grown-up children and parents needs to essentially create a love or friendship. The reason is simple; it is a parent’s responsibility to care for their children so they grow up to be mature adults. English backs this up by making it known that parents do what they are supposed to do based on voluntary sacrifice, a sacrifice(s) that the child in general has no apparent knowledge of at the time in which said sacrifice(s) is made. English also goes on to say that because a child is just being a child, it does not entitle the parent to make the child feel like they have to do something for them as adults because of everything they did for that child.
The basis of English’s thesis is that parents cannot factor or hold accounts of the numerous instances where they might have got their children out of trouble in their entire lifetime. As parents, it is their responsibility to safeguard and protect their children from all kinds of trouble because; it is not the choice of the children for them being brought into this world. Grown children do not owe their parents anything because as Jane English also points out, it is the natural order of things. English explains that doing whatever we can for our parents is the child’s choice alone, the choice should not be bartered for any reason because it would eventually make the child grow to resent the parent which no parent wants. Moreover, she claims that this choice of children voluntarily doing something to their parents depends on the friendly relationship and rapport that both parents and children share.
Interestingly, there are several arguments that Jane English used to break down the accuracy of the logic and justifies her thesis on the discussion. The first argument of English is that, because child X was a well-behaved child throughout their life, and was showered with the most praise, that parent feels that the child owes it to that parent to let that parent tell them how to run their life. For example, telling the child who they should and should not date, expecting the child to do things based on their preferences, to do everything that the child is asked without complaining or taking into account their own lives. This is explained by English in a different manner as – “We love you and you will be happier if you do X”. According to Jane, “The Quantity of parental sacrifice is not relevant in determining what duties the grown-up child has.”
Another argument that English makes is, child A was a very troubled and disturbed youth with problems aplenty. Parents have spent 21 years of their lives trying to get and keep child A on the straight and narrow, whereas child B & C were the complete opposite. Now, child A has become a very successful CEO and the parents feel that it is time for child A to give back by marrying who they feel are good enough for their child. In this argument, the parents feel that because they were there for child A and helped her through the most dangerous and perilous times in her life, child A owes it them to let them decide who she marries; making all of her big decisions.
The third argument of English is, Child F goes to college and is living their own independent lifestyle which consists of a no-holds barred life of living free. However, the parents of child F wants the child to write or call home every 2 days because the child owes them that because the front money that they put up in order to get child F into college. In doing this, the child can work off the “debt” that the child put up trying to get into college; a college that the parents picked out for the child. The child’s parents has taken the liberty of picking out the college for the child because it is the parents way of helping the child “pay” off the debt that child made throughout their life.
My assessment or opinion of Jane English’s argument is that I feel she is definitely right about everything, and she gives an all too accurate account of how some parents act as well as feel. Furthermore, I feel that some parents take it upon themselves to try to run their children’s lives because of their obligatory duty to that child. I feel that Jane’s comment about the child vs. parent-want relationship was extremely accurate, a child does not ask to be born. But, when the child is born, the parent has an obligatory duty to that child to ensure that the child gets everything that they need to be responsible and mature adults. It is the parent’s responsibility to provide that, children have no conscious knowledge about this whatsoever.
Jane English’s arguments were very precise, straight to the point and certainly valid. Her arguments coincide with my personal opinion that I always had about the parent-child relationships which are required to be always distinct and discrete. For instance, when the child grows up, there are no debts that the child needs to repay to their parents for being their child. A child’s life is not about ownership, but more about enjoying the childhood and all the years of growing up, as well as being given the liberty to live their life without the concept of a debt hanging over their head when they grow up into mature adults. The same can be said for a grown-up who wants to live their life a certain way instead of living it like their parents say they should. For example, if a college kid wants to go a few months without calling home then that should be left up to the college kid and not up to the parent who wants the college kid to call home every single day. Jane English’s arguments provide a mental map or “destination” if you will about how parents should be parents, and children should be children without no strings attached or future debts to repay for being conceived, born and raised.
Jane English’s arguments resonated well with me because I feel that when parents have children, they are accepting the responsibility of taking care of that child by any means necessary lest that child is taken away. Parents have no right to expect their child to do things that they do not want to do like calling home every weekend or going to church every Sunday or being told who to marry, it should all be off the record.
My personal opinion is that, the moral obligation in today’s contemporary times is certainly at odds with close personal relationships. Moral obligation is the parent’s alone because as stated previously, the child did not ask to be born and the fact that the child has to repay the parent’s moral obligation to them is just wrong on all levels. For example, when a child outgrows their clothes, it is their parent’s moral obligation to get the child more clothes because if the parent does not fulfill their obligation to their child then it will likely lead to the child resenting the parent. Child-parent resentment is a very powerful and evil weapon that should never be wielded by any family member.
Moral obligation would definitely be at odds with close relationships because it will destroy any chance that a mother-daughter or father-son could bond over things especially over likeminded hobbies. If a parent continuously asked their child or children to do something in response to a moral deed on the parent’s part, it would definitely compromise the close personal relationship with that child. For example, if a male child proposed to a woman that his parents did not approve of by reminding him that they gave him free use of the living room for his teenage co-ed slumber party, this would cause the male child to turn his back to his manipulative parents and justly so. A parent’s moral obligation to their child and to their child’s needs is absolute, there is no greater power than a parent morally being there for their child as they are supposed to be. Close personal relationships are definitely on the chopping block for parents who would use their parental responsibilities to compromise or barter for their child’s life choice, or at the very least, have more say in making those choices than the child themselves. Moral obligation vs. Close personal relationships, if people had to choose which one holds more weight, they would definitely choose close personal relationships. The reason is simple; having the love and support of your children means more than a parent using their moral obligation to try to take over their child’s life which is just morally wrong. It teaches the wrong lesson, a lesson of immaturity and disregard.
Works Cited
English, Jane. "What Do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?" Jecker, Nancy S. Aging & Ethics. New Jersey: Humana Press, 1992. 147-154.
