hinduwoman

Do they?
The parents bring them up and care for them. So supposedly the children should look after them.
But the children were not consulted when they were conceived. The parents brought them to earth for selfish reasons of their own.

So why should – affection apart --- children have any moral obligation to their parents?

IsItJustMe

This looks like a fun question.

I say:

1. Everyone has a moral obligation to everyone else, so children at least have as much moral obligation to their parents as they do to anyone else.

2. Your moral obligation is greatest to those who are closest to you in proximity and connection, simply because that's a more reasonable way for people to look after one another than a different arrangement.

3. Therefore, children generally have a moral obligation to their parents, but this will not be the case in situations of estrangement.

4. What this moral obligation entails varies from society to society, and in societies where there are such things as social security and pensions the obligation is likely to be less than in societies where there are not.

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

I'm highly doubtful of this principle. It may be more practical to assist people in close proximity to oneself, but I see no moral reason to suppose that proximity ought to matter. The only situation in which proximity should come into play, in my opinion, is where the moral situations of two different entities are of similar seriousness, such that we make choices to help based mainly on extrinsic reasons. So, if there's a dying child in Africa and a dying child two steps away from you on the sidewalk, it is more practical to assist the local child. However, if we have a choice between donating money to save a dying child in Africa and putting that same money towards a new stereo for our children, the proximity of our children ought not matter in our moral reasoning.

Re: the OP, there are some reasons (perhaps not moral, but certainly social) why taking care of one's own parents ought to be done. Cohesion in the family contributes bountifully to one's sense of identity and assists with the development of social and moral values, which probably wouldn't occur as easily or as desirably if everyone lived as 'one big family' in a broader context without the same preferential treatment. However, I would hate to justify the lavish exorbitance splashed on one's own child that occurs frequently, at the expense of much needier children whose only fault is that they were not lucky enough to be born in a rich family. Thus, moral obligations to one's own family members ought to be treated carefully without advocating immorally high levels of favouritism.

IsItJustMe

I think that's what I have in mind, but only more or less restated. Let's put it another way: Suppose your mom, who lives not too far from you, needs a ride to the store because her eyes aren't so good anymore. And suppose someone in Africa needs a ride to the store because his eyes aren't too good anymore. I would say you may very well have an obligation to your mom, but not the African.

Groovy Cosmic Monkey

Fair enough. Probably not too much to disagree about there.

engly-saxo

Nonsense. In life, no one is owed anything.
I don't believe children are obligated to look after their parents. If anything, it's a culture dependent thing.

Well, children don't have the means to look after themselves, do they?

Tom Sawyer

I disagree with this. While we don't just generally owe anything to random people, we do owe something to those who have done something for us. If we take some bread from a store, we owe the storekeeper money for the time they took to make the bread and to run the store where the bread is sold. If we don't want to do that, we are free to make the bread at home, but if we want to benefit from someone else making the bread and freeing up our time for other things, we owe the storekeeper for the effort he put in to make that bread. Granted, he didn't make that bread out of altruism and it was because of the selfish motive of making money that he did it, but that doesn't change the fact that we took advantage of it and thus owe him for his effort, regardless of his motives for making that effort.

From a completely utilitarian standpoint, it's the same thing with parenting. Parents took the time and effort to raise their children and are owed something for the effort that they put in. Sure, the children had no choice in the matter, but that doesn't change the fact that they used the service and the people who gave them the service deserve some compensation for it.

Part of being in a society means that there are certain elements of that society that we take advantage of whether we choose to or not. If you post notices around your house that firefighters aren't to come in to try and rescue anyone in the event of a fire, they will still come in and try to rescue people in the event of a fire - it's a service given to all members of a community that employs firefighters whether some individual members of the comunity desire it or not. Every member of the community benefits from having the firefighters whether or not they want to opt out of fire protection, so they all owe the taxes to pay for the firefighters.

Parenting is similar. Every one of us who was raised by decent parents has benefitted from having those parents. Whether or not you would have made the choice to have someone clothe and feed you when you were unable to do that yourself is irrelevant. You are a member of a society that has decided that parents will clothe and feed their children and you have an obligation to repay them for those services whether or not you would have opted out of using those services if someone had asked you beforehand.

kaelcarp

I believe children are mostly morally obligated to behave as well to their parents as their parents did to them.

For example, my wife's mother walked out, and her father left her with his own mother and really didn't participate in her life other than to send money occasionally, which he was legally bound to do. I don't think she has any moral obligation to either of her parents. I also don't think a child who is abused by parents has any moral obligation to them.

Basically, if the parents were loving and provided a good, nurturing environment and the child benefited from being raised by them, the child is morally obligated to help them out down the line. If the parents were hurtful, neglectful, or otherwise irresponsible, the obligation falls off according to the degree of severity.

Oar

I agree with kaelcarp. Of course, the same thing could be said for your relationship to anyone.

jonesg

Because God commands it.
Its "Honor thy Mother and Thy Father",
not Thy Children.

Why do you think that is ?