Parents, what do your children owe you, how should they repay you? Surely the owe you everything that you have given to them, after all, without life they would not have anything. In which case, they owe you all the happiness which you have given to them, and all the respect you have given to them. To be fair now, we'll have to recognize that a large portion of their happiness did not, in fact, come from you. Additionally, if you want to be repaid for all the good things, it would be fair if you also received payment for all of the bad things; any sort of emotional trauma which you have dealt them, should be dealt to you, given that without you they could not have had that experience.
Wow, there is something seriously wrong with that above. Though I must confess, it is fairly strange and unfair to only focus on the positive aspects of a relationship. It's not really fair to say that someone owes you all that you've given them, except for everything bad. It's akin to demand someone pay you back, but refusing to pay your debt to that person. Still, I do not think that children owe their parents anything, negative or positive.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Donating Money to Cure Terminal Diseases
Is it appropriate to donate money to organizations whose goals are "to find a cure for (enter any terminal illness here)"?
This is a very tricky question, and here, I would have to answer with a sound no. So long as we are supporting a capitalist system and the insurance companies can benefit, donating to such organizations is not worth it. As long as some company stands to benefit, no actually solution or cure will be created for public use. Simply, if the insurance companies stand to benefit, the organization set to find a cure will instead start producing drugs which temporarily remedy the illness. The industries, I think, instead of finding a cure, will almost undoubtedly create a drug which forces the ailed individual to live with the disease at the cost of continuous expensive medication.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Building a House
Suppose that I gave you a deed to the house which has not yet been built but had arranged paperwork in such a manner as to make me legally responsible for building the house over a span of 18 years at a cost of my time and approximately $200,000. I had no reason to do this other than my wanting to build a house for you; I WANT to be successful at building a house, and I want a house to be built for you; again, this cost is an obligation which I am taking upon myself by my own volition.
Assuming that I successfully build the house, I can be proud of the fact that I have built it, after all, I set out to build it because I wanted to; even if you didn't thank me for it, I know that I completed it in a satisfactory manner. If I am expecting some manner of gratitude or respect for my being kind to you or building a house for you, I may as well not undertake that labour or obligation, because there is no way to know if you will be grateful anyhow. It would certainly be nice if you did thank me and you probably would if I did a nice job, but you are required to, because I built the house due to my desire to build one for you. If I set out to build a house, I ought to do so under the assumption that I will not be receiving any gratitude, that way I will not be disappointed if I receive none, because none is owed to me, or I will be happy because I've receive gratitude, though non was owed to me. Additionally, it would be highly pleasing to me if you did live in, which is to say, didn't destroy, the house which I built for you.
This is comparable to parent having children. If they have set out to have children because they find it rewarding to raise children or because, for some other reason, they want to, they have received their reward by being able to successfully raise a child; the child owes nothing to them. The only thing that I think a parent could request is that a child keep their own life, even so, the child has no obligation to do so; presumably, if the parent does a good job, the child choose to keep their own life anyway. If I choose to have a child because I want it to respect me, I should reconsider the option because my motivations are cloudy and will likely result in the sub-par parenting.
Assuming that I successfully build the house, I can be proud of the fact that I have built it, after all, I set out to build it because I wanted to; even if you didn't thank me for it, I know that I completed it in a satisfactory manner. If I am expecting some manner of gratitude or respect for my being kind to you or building a house for you, I may as well not undertake that labour or obligation, because there is no way to know if you will be grateful anyhow. It would certainly be nice if you did thank me and you probably would if I did a nice job, but you are required to, because I built the house due to my desire to build one for you. If I set out to build a house, I ought to do so under the assumption that I will not be receiving any gratitude, that way I will not be disappointed if I receive none, because none is owed to me, or I will be happy because I've receive gratitude, though non was owed to me. Additionally, it would be highly pleasing to me if you did live in, which is to say, didn't destroy, the house which I built for you.
This is comparable to parent having children. If they have set out to have children because they find it rewarding to raise children or because, for some other reason, they want to, they have received their reward by being able to successfully raise a child; the child owes nothing to them. The only thing that I think a parent could request is that a child keep their own life, even so, the child has no obligation to do so; presumably, if the parent does a good job, the child choose to keep their own life anyway. If I choose to have a child because I want it to respect me, I should reconsider the option because my motivations are cloudy and will likely result in the sub-par parenting.
You Have A Bias And I Do Not
While discussing the issue of what children owe to their parents, parents often feel inclined to suggest that children who think that they do not owe their parents are simply thinking in that way because they have had a bad experience with their parents.Essentially, it's an attempt to render the opposition invalid by suggesting that they cannot separate their personal connections and attitudes towards their bad parents from an objective view of the situation; essentially, you can only take part in this debate if you have had good parents, because if you've had bad parents you will be biased and you won't be able to look past that when discussing the issue.
Personally, I think that children should be able to and ought to look past their own biases as it makes their argument more rational and agreeable. Similarly, however, because I think they are able to, I invite parents to put aside their biases in thinking that their labour and effort automatically equate to some of like debt which the children owe to the parents. The common view on debt to parents is that parents have laboured for so long and thereby deserve reward. This mindset is often witnessed in people; people think that hard work in the workplace should result in the reward of a raise; that situation, however, is substantially different.
Personally, I think that children should be able to and ought to look past their own biases as it makes their argument more rational and agreeable. Similarly, however, because I think they are able to, I invite parents to put aside their biases in thinking that their labour and effort automatically equate to some of like debt which the children owe to the parents. The common view on debt to parents is that parents have laboured for so long and thereby deserve reward. This mindset is often witnessed in people; people think that hard work in the workplace should result in the reward of a raise; that situation, however, is substantially different.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)