Does parents have moral obligations towards their kids?

[SondreB]

Listening to "FDR2182 Do You Own Your Kids?", it's clear that Stefan have the opinion that parents are morally obligated to feed their own children, but only their own. He is explicit on this, and mentions that we do not have a morally obligation towards others.

 

Not feeding your own children, he equals to murder. As the child is in no way capable of surviving on his own.

 

I believe that Stefan have an unfounded opinion on this, one that is not easily defend. I would be interested in hearing what you others are thinking on this, and perhaps Stefan as well?

 

What is the cause for giving parents moral obligation towards a child?

 

1. Is it that the state have given a person the legal guardian status of the child? (obviously not...)

2. Is it that the child have some amount of shared DNA with you?

3. Is it that you did the act that directly caused the the pregnancy?

 

There are plenty of follow-up questions to be answered to each of these points, for instance, do you have moral obligation towards your siblings children, or your grand children?

 

From what I listen to in the podcast, in the example with the olympic swimmer, it appears to be the act of stating that you want the responsibility of the child, that makes you morally obligated.

 

If that is all too it, then that's fine. Then a mother who have given birth, or have evacuated the fetus (still alive) from her womb, can declare that she have no intention or will to take care of that child. Will she need to actually get an agreement with another care-taker before her obligations are gone, or is it up to the society and anyone around to stand up and take responsibility?

 

Stefan mentions that taking the kid home, seals the deal. This is fine as I said, I'm wondering about before and after giving birth.

 

So my view on abortion, is that as long as it's done without killing directly, instead done using medicine or physically detaching the fetus/baby, than it's not in violation of the NAP. If anyone wants to take care of the baby, they should be allowed to do so freely.

 

If on the other hand, the mother is morally obligated to take care of the child until agreement over parenthood is made, then abortion would in my mind be morally wrong (if nobody can take care of the child).

 

Another question it raises, what about rape? If the baby is a result of action done by others and not the mother, does she have a morally obligation to feed that child? If so, then it's not the decision to make children that entangles the moral obligation, but simply the act of having something grow inside your body? That doesn't make much sense for me?

 

The end question is, if it's not the actions, if it's not the DNA, then what is the cause that gives you moral obligation? How can we distinguish between which baby we have moral obligations towards, and which ones we do not?

[powder]

I haven't studied or listened to very much on the topic so my perspective is simply my instinctive response but I would say that it comes down to choices.  we choose to have sex and that may lead to childbirth, therefore, we are responsible for that child. Perhaps more significant is the fact that the child has no choice as to the situation it ends up in so it is up to the adults in their life to stand in on their behalf.  that would relate directly to your questions about rape and looking out for kids that are within your social environment (family).  what do you think of that?  

[jpahmad]

 

The end question is, if it's not the actions, if it's not the DNA, then what is the cause that gives you moral obligation? How can we distinguish between which baby we have moral obligations towards, and which ones we do not?

 

The DNA is exactly what gives a mother the urge to take care of a child that they have been carrying in their womb for 9 months.  It is an evolutionary instinct that has evolved over millions of years.  The DNA determines what is "moral."

 

A women who just tosses out her baby with the trash, is just damaged goods.  With healthy individuals, unless they had a momentary moment of complete irrationality (not likely with someone who I consider "healthy") this would never happen.

 

It's really not an issue.  However if someone were to do this, then they would probably be condemned by many people, and in a free society, they would most likely get dropped by there DRO.  So, the threat of that alone would be an incentive not to do the act.

[Wuzzums]

The question can be rephrased to a more succinct and easily answerable question: Are we responsible for our own actions?

[cynicist]

Another question it raises, what about rape? If the baby is a result of action done by others and not the mother, does she have a morally obligation to feed that child? If so, then it's not the decision to make children that entangles the moral obligation, but simply the act of having something grow inside your body? That doesn't make much sense for me?

 

Are there not ways to terminate a pregnancy in that case? Or give the child up for adoption? Otherwise you would be obligated to feed the child, since you are making the choice to keep them even if there was no choice in the conception. I'm more confused about what part of Stefan's statements you consider to be opinion. Do you think children can survive on their own or something?

[SondreB]

I understand this is a very small and narrow issue, the question is not regarding parents option to do adoption or anything else. The question is if a parent have a moral obligation to take care of a baby (before and immediately after birth), or rather if they are allowed to choose not to care for the child that is the result of their actions?

 

There are many possible scenarios where a person can become pregnant, of their own choices or not, and there are many cases where mothers goes through pregnancy not realizing their are pregnant - and it comes as a shock to them at a doctors visit that the pain in their stomach is a baby about to be born. During pregnancy, the body is a hormonal fluctuation, which can push the most rational headed person into deep depression - often resulting in not wanting to care for the child.

 

It's not easy coming up with good example, so I think I might be trying to create an issue where there is none. I have in the past thought that parent do not owe the children anything.

 

jpahmad: I can't agree that DNA is in any way what dictates our moral, that would mean you have a moral obligation towards you parents, children, grand children and so forth.

 

Thanks for the answers!

[alexqr1]

Hi SondreB, I uploaded a video about morality here. In it, I describe when a person obtains a moral duty or obligation to do something. I use abortion as an example at one point in the video and I think that will help you with your question. Basically, if we are to discuss morality, we have to assign everyone negative rights, which do not oblige action from others. But negative rights are not what you are truly asking about, you are more concerned with positive rights because you ask if a parent has an obligation to act in order to take care of the child. Well, according to my theory, which I loosely describe in the video, there are 3 ways in which one acquires positive rights in relation with someone else. Or looked at from another perspective, three ways in which one acquires a positive obligation to act in someone else's benefit: 1.- When A willfully agrees to do action X for B, then B gains a positive right in relation to A, or A obtains a positive obligation to do X for B. This is common in trading or contracts. 2.- When A's actions directly result in the loss of value for B without previous consent of B. Like if I break your window then I must fix it. 3.- THIS IS THE IMPORTANT ONE HERE. When the actions of A directly result in B being put in a position where he/she would not otherwise had been. So, if the parents would not had willfully had sex, which directly resulted in the child being conceived, then the child would had never been there in the first place, thus, the parents obtain a moral obligation towards the child and the child has a positive right in relation to his/her parents. Now, if the mother is raped for example, then there is no such obligation unless the mother willfully accepts it. In this case the only moral obligation to take care of the child belongs to the rapist. (Again, unless the mother willfully accepts such obligation also)One more thing, if we accept that life begins at conception, then it is immoral to have an abortion following the mother willfully having sex which resulted in pregnancy. If the mother became pregnant after being raped, then the abortion is not immoral, since the fetus is occupying her body without it being the result of her willful actions.

I have in the past thought that parent do not owe the children anything.

If the child is born directly as a result of the parent's actions, then saying a parent does not owe the child anything is like saying that an abductor does not owe the abductee anything. I am not saying that parenthood is the same as abduction of course, but the moral implications are similar: The actions of A directly put B in a position in which he/she would not otherwise had been.