Curtain Climbing Apes....

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Are parents morally obligated to care for their children?

OK, lets say I meet a nice blind girl and we tickle the respective fancies of each other. Nine months later out pops a lil GCT. The Mother has her own life, I have my own, neither of which is the same life as Jr.'s… why must we (notice I said we, meaning mother and father) be required to care for/provide for/ protect it etc.

I don’t mean to say I bash its head in with a rock or anything, I just leave it near a road somewhere, or I take it to the unwanted baby’s home.

Also, let me ask, what do you think the world would look like if this was the common practice for all children?

This seems to be one of those moral necessities that require an overt act (to raise a child) as opposed to not acting (do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, etc.)

Isn’t saying X is my child, ergo I should care for X; an is/ought fallacy?

2

in a word, no

you are required by law after birth… not by morals… and you don’t have to keep it…

leaving it on a road is a crime, taking it to an orphanage is the legal thing to do…

like it does… it is common practice for most… worse in some places…

when you raise the “moral” argument you have to decide on the standard…

-Imp

3

A little GCT? I wouldn’t care for it at all (all puns intentional):wink:
If neither of you want to care for it, obviously you shouldn’t be allowed to. The World is full of latch key kids raised in single parent homes by the ever-loving television. One could make the argument that you should have known that sex produces children and have taken precautions against bringing a little GCT into the World, but i suppose if you accept is/ought then that falls by the wayside along with your discarded baby. No, logic is of no avail here, only passion, or have i thrown the baby out with the bath water?

4

Well lets take the evolutionary tact and say our purpose is to survive.

One should do one’s purpose no?

But isn’t it a fact that our genetic immortality is tied into the production and protection of offspring? Should our genes simply require us the breathe, eat, drink? Do they not often instill within us with a drive towards sex (and therefore the expected results) only to stop with concern soley for ourselves, and not our mates nor our children?

What I am looking for is the extension of the materialist view into something showing an ethic in regards to others.

5

I believe that we are genetically engineered to care for our offspring and even the offspring of others and one must remember that sex also keeps the parents around long enough to care for the children. It is interesting that we only live long enough to care for the next generation. Life goes on, and will not be stopped. Both sex and death are important aspects of evolution.

Yes. Somebody has to do it if only in vitro to keep the species going, but it doesn’t have to be the parents.

6

Your duty to your children is an absolute moral/ethical duty. It is probably the essence to natural law. There is no society, no ethical school who would not attach blame and guilt to the abandonment of children. It is as you point out, part of our instinct to procreate. Maternal and paternal instincts are basic throughout higher animal species. Birds feed the baby chicks in the nest. Opossums carry them in a pouch.

That having been said it seems that some humans do a poor job. Maybe in other species too we only see the norms and there are many cases of the parents not taking care of the offspring, who we do not observe.

It is somewhat a fight between the instincts of survival of self versus the survival of the species. Some mothers (or fathers) would sacrifice herself for the child others would not. Humans with their ability to reason are able to justify it not only as a question of survival but a question of quality of survival. We can both survive but I as the parent want to continue my own life (career etc. insert your own justification here). We seem to be able to provide for the first year or so and then give them a TV to set in front of, a refrigerator with some food in it, and a latch key to get in.

Maybe all of this takes us to our current “fire bell ringing in the night” ABORTION. ( a debate which I hate) but I am not sure which side it supports.

7

Why pose such a moral/ethical problem.
Have a child of your own and then we will talk about emotions.

8

GCT –

We are legally obligated.

Some are morally obligated, some not.

Take the Chinese for example. What is it that makes a father abort a daughter in favor of a son? Is their gender balance that out of whack or is it some survival insinct? Just a rotten moral?

Are you looking for a universal human morality, or an absolute of some sort? I ask because I believe that most generalized morals have different characteristcs depending on the situation, based upon human instinct.

In most cases, providing and nurturing your child will be the inherent instinct, but if the rules of survival have changed then perhaps leaving the child would be unavoidable.

I’d like to hear a mother’s perspective on this one.

As for your second question, what do you mean by “what the world would look like”

9

Woops, I missed replying to this for a few days… heh.

I think I was going for the obvious, if no parent cared for their child then why would any adult, and if no adult cared for a child, how would any survive, and if no children survived how would there be any adults?

Infanticide poses an interesting problem. But if one argues it is justified in so far as it allows for the survival and well being of others, that places survival as the end. If survival is the end, then there are things one must do to survive. If we must do them then we can be said to be morally obligated to do them.

See what I mean?

What part would you say emotions play? I mean, not that I necessarily feel this way, but if I am to survive it could be that what I feel has nothing to do with my survival.

But then again, I could very well be wrong.

My understanding is that the practice of child abandonment was widespread in the ancient world. i-zach has pointed out China… I have also read that it is or was up until recently, a common practice among Eskimos.

But if no parents are thus programmed how would any adult be programmed so?

I submit it works in an order, with personal concerns being the first on the list. Stating that, aren’t there plenty of cases where parents have risked their lives or sometimes lost their lives trying to save their children?

Perhaps for some, the survival and well being of offspring becomes more important than personal survival.

Now I must ask, what would the world look like if every parent truly felt this way?

10

Well, you must, if you must.

I would predict that the world would look pretty much the same as it did 100 thousands years ago. Or whenever they say that humans appears on the scene (like a sex mach- er, well you know).

First it would take a miracle humanity to continue. We are born like marsupials, not ready to survive on our own. Without the protective pouch of caregiviers an infant human would die in a matter of days.

Even if we had food and water human babies would die from a lack of human contact. Babies die without loving touch.

But lets say somehow human babies do manage to survive. These loners would have to be tough, sturdy and strong. The would not know how to social nor have any social skills.

Languge and tool use would never develop very far.

There would be no tribes, no culture, no agricultural revolution, and no civilization.

11

As to the Chinese and Eskimo’s that exposed babies. I t is my understanding that it was in a time of famine when all mouuths could not be fed. A parent could strave himself and fed the baby but this hardly made sense if the parent was also the support for other children and the babies were the most likely not survive anyway. In the nineteenth century in England one on the most advanced of societies 20 to 25% of children died before age 5.

My understanding of you question is not that there is not enough to go around, it is just that two self centered individuals want to live their live not have to be resposible for children.

That is morally wrong, always has been, always will be, anywhere.

12

I agree. What I am looking for, ultimately, is an answer for when someone might ask “how” or “why” one knows such things to be wrong.

It doesn’t flow from some book, it isn’t justified by some abstract idea… it is the result of basic human nature.

Categorical Imperatives are the result of Biological Imperatives?

Perhaps.