Up until what point are your parents morally responsible to provide for you?

[Jot]

We are all born unable to provide for ourselves shelter, food, protection, etc...people responsible to provide these things for us are those who created us.

 

But at what point your parents can say to you that their moral obligation is over and now if you want resources from them you need to provide value back?

[powder]

We are all born unable to provide for ourselves shelter, food, protection, etc...people responsible to provide these things for us are those who created us.

 

But at what point your parents can say to you that their moral obligation is over and now if you want resources from them you need to provide value back?

I am curious about the motive for this question.  

 

we tend to like to think in statist 'legal' terms which would point to 18 yrs old, which is reasonable for most cases.  In general I suppose it could be whenever the child is capable of adult responsibilities and productivity.  Do you think there needs to be a specific guideline for this?

[Jot]

How do we know when a child is capable of adult responsibilities and productivity?

[Will Torbald]

We are all born unable to provide for ourselves shelter, food, protection, etc...people responsible to provide these things for us are those who created us.

 

But at what point your parents can say to you that their moral obligation is over and now if you want resources from them you need to provide value back?

 

If we lived in a world with static opportunities for jobs or food, etc, then this question could be answered somewhat. But in a chaotic and changing environment even an adult can find himself unable to provide for himself.

[Jot]

If we lived in a world with static opportunities for jobs or food, etc, then this question could be answered somewhat. But in a chaotic and changing environment even an adult can find himself unable to provide for himself.

So what is the answer? 

[Will Torbald]

So what is the answer? 

 

Not all questions that can be asked can be answered. What is the smell of seven? Can't be answered. Philosophy exists in a special space where principles are hard and eternal, but life is wobbly and whammy. It is an exercise of wisdom to translate principles into the real world. There's no hard answer.

[powder]

How do we know when a child is capable of adult responsibilities and productivity?

my guess is that if the caregiver is not capable of making that distinction then there is a serious problem for sure.  why does there need to be a definitive answer?  You also did not respond to my other question.  

[Torero]

How do we know when a child is capable of adult responsibilities and productivity?

 

Who do you refer to with "we"?

 

If you're the parent, then you should know when.

Anyone else is irrelevant.

[Jot]

Not all questions that can be asked can be answered. What is the smell of seven? Can't be answered. Philosophy exists in a special space where principles are hard and eternal, but life is wobbly and whammy. It is an exercise of wisdom to translate principles into the real world. There's no hard answer.

I don't like your analogy...what is the smell of seven cannot be answered because it is an illogical question, meaningless, it cannot have an answer, mine is logical, why should I expect it not to have an answer?

Who do you refer to with "we"?

 

If you're the parent, then you should know when.

Anyone else is irrelevant.

Let me put it again...When is a child capable of adult responsibilities and productivity? What attributes does he/she have to exhibit/posses/have?

[Torero]

Let me put it again...When is a child capable of adult responsibilities and productivity? What attributes does he/she have to exhibit/posses/have?

 

Why do you keep phishing for some "general rule"? Every parent can judge that for himself. None of your business.

[Jot]

Why do you keep phishing for some "general rule"? Every parent can judge that for himself. None of your business.

Judge for himself doesn't imply that his judgement is also correct.

[Torero]

Judge for himself doesn't imply that his judgement is also correct.

 

It's none of your business. What are you, the Final Judge For Correctness, breaking into people's homes to check if their reasoning is "correct" according to Ferssitar's Handbook of Correctness?

[Will Torbald]

I don't like your analogy...what is the smell of seven cannot be answered because it is an illogical question, meaningless, it cannot have an answer, mine is logical, why should I expect it not to have an answer?

 

I think this is a fair objection to my example. I'll make another one, which is about continuum. Development isn't digital, as in hard notes in a piano, but it is analog like the strings of a violin where there is no hard distinction between one note or the other. Each person develops uniquely, and there is no one day in which a person incapable, and then suddenly capable. It is a question to be answered by each particular case, not as a general absolute guide.

[dsayers]

We are all born unable to provide for ourselves shelter, food, protection, etc...people responsible to provide these things for us are those who created us.

 

But at what point your parents can say to you that their moral obligation is over and now if you want resources from them you need to provide value back?

False dichotomy. The process has a gradation.

 

To answer your question, the obligation a parent voluntarily creates is to protect and nurture until such a time as they are able to survive without their parents. When this is depends on many factors and will be different for everybody.

[Jot]

It's none of your business. What are you, the Final Judge For Correctness, breaking into people's homes to check if their reasoning is "correct" according to Ferssitar's Handbook of Correctness?

So if the kids got mistreated it would not by my business? I am sorry but it would, if I knew someone is abused and could do something about it, I'd do it, I would certainly not throw my hands in the air and scream "none of my businesses".

 

My book is none other than reason and logic, personalizing it to me, the way you did there, is accusing me of not being reasonable. Why would you assume this?

[Torero]

So if the kids got mistreated it would not by my business? I am sorry but it would, if I knew someone is abused and could do something about it, I'd do it, I would certainly not throw my hands in the air and scream "none of my businesses".

 

You're moving the goal posts. Your initial question was: "at what point can parents reverse the care [resources] for their children and ask them to care [providing value back] for them". Now you're talking about mistreatment and abuse.

 

Asking your children to bring value to the parents is nor mistreatment, nor abuse. When the initiation of the use of force is involved, it becomes a different matter and that would indeed mean mistreatment or abuse.

 

 

 

My book is none other than reason and logic, personalizing it to me, the way you did there, is accusing me of not being reasonable. Why would you assume this?

 

If you are concerned with the way other parent-child relations are happening, why don't you apply for a role as "child's psychiatrist/caretaker" and in a free society that would be under contract based on peaceful negotiation? You may need some credentials for that role. To handle abuse a Dispute Resolution Organisation (DRO) would be the place to go.

 

You yourself did step on the chair of "Moral Judge" by doubting the "correctness" of the judgement of parents you don't know.

[Jot]

 

You're moving the goal posts. Your initial question was: "at what point can parents reverse the care [resources] for their children and ask them to care [providing value back] for them". Now you're talking about mistreatment and abuse.

 

Asking your children to bring value to the parents is nor mistreatment, nor abuse. When the initiation of the use of force is involved, it becomes a different matter and that would indeed mean mistreatment or abuse.

 

 

 

 

If you are concerned with the way other parent-child relations are happening, why don't you apply for a role as "child's psychiatrist/caretaker" and in a free society that would be under contract based on peaceful negotiation? You may need some credentials for that role. To handle abuse a Dispute Resolution Organisation (DRO) would be the place to go.

 

You yourself did step on the chair of "Moral Judge" by doubting the "correctness" of the judgement of parents you don't know.

If parents are under the moral obligation to provide for their children and they don't do it...it is abuse.

[powder]

ahh, now I am starting to see that it was not really a question, like most aren't when people make this type of inquiry.  It is also becoming clear why the OP is not responding to the question of why this is important to them.  

[Jot]

ahh, now I am starting to see that it was not really a question, like most aren't when people make this type of inquiry.  It is also becoming clear why the OP is not responding to the question of why this is important to them.  

What is the reason for which I did not respond?

[Jot]

False dichotomy. The process has a gradation.

 

To answer your question, the obligation a parent voluntarily creates is to protect and nurture until such a time as they are able to survive without their parents. When this is depends on many factors and will be different for everybody.

Hm, I don't really see how a process having a gradation means that there is no point in time, t, in which the circumstances of t-1 can be different from t...or I am not understanding your argument.

 

But what about the factors? Let us say we have a person called "z", how can we test his ability to survive by himself?

I think this is a fair objection to my example. I'll make another one, which is about continuum. Development isn't digital, as in hard notes in a piano, but it is analog like the strings of a violin where there is no hard distinction between one note or the other. Each person develops uniquely, and there is no one day in which a person incapable, and then suddenly capable. It is a question to be answered by each particular case, not as a general absolute guide.

But if there is no day in which he is incapable and then he becomes capable...if this is true, doesn't this mean that he will never become capable?

[powder]

What is the reason for which I did not respond?

I wrote that I was curious about the motive for the question, why are you asking?  I suspect the answer will get us closer to what it is you really want to talk about.  

[Jot]

I wrote that I was curious about the motive for the question, why are you asking?  I suspect the answer will get us closer to what it is you really want to talk about.  

It is indeed something personal, but I don't feel comfortable talking about on the public forum.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The parent's moral obligation it is to never abuse the child in any way. The moral obligation is derived from the fact that the parent chooses to have the child, and knows the child will be born in a helpless state compared to the parent. Therefore it would be impossible to treat the child as an adult, and why some things are abusive towards children which we don't consider abusive towards adults (I don't have to feed a bum, but I have to feed my child).

 

If someone is in contempt as a parent the they remain in contempt unless there is proportional restitution provided. If a person violates a moral obligation, they remain guilty of that moral offense and are responsible for restitution until the day they die. 

 

Abusive parents are liable for restitution proportional the their offence, and are morally contemptible until they provide the restitution necessary (which might include paying for an apartment and therapy for the child). And they cannot ever abuse the child again else they rescind their restitution completely.

 

I guess that wasn't exactly your question but it was something that came up for me reading this thread. If I have defined the moral obligation of the parent correctly, it is no wonder why so few are capable of fulfilling it since it is a hefty burden to lift, but it is one they have created. I don't have much sympathy for parents who have't acknowledged their culpability for abuse 20 years into the life of their child. In fact I think they deserve to be ostracized.

[dsayers]

Hm, I don't really see how a process having a gradation means that there is no point in time, t, in which the circumstances of t-1 can be different from t...or I am not understanding your argument.

 

But what about the factors? Let us say we have a person called "z", how can we test his ability to survive by himself?

I think you're trying to determine an objective standard for something that is subjective.