Filial Obligations versus Duties of Friendship

Filial Obligations versus Duties of Friendship
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Lecturer’s Name
Assignment Due Date
Filial Obligations versus Duties of Friendship
Care for parents is a salient issue because it improves the lives of many older adults since their children would be more present in their lives. Paying for parent's medical bills, for instance, improves their medical care. Supporting them financially also improves their quality of life. In other words, parents expect children to take care of them when they are old, and this responsibility seems to burden grown children. Despite the burden, it makes no sense to ignore the aging parents. Although most philosophers term parental responsibilities as children’s rights, the duty of taking care of parents is moral and worth. It is agreeable that adults have some special duties to their parents, which are stronger than what they owe to friends. Adults might have an obligation to their parents' medical bills but have no similar duty to their friends because friends tend to act from generosity and supererogation (Choi, 2016). Holding that the duties of grown children to their parents are stronger than the duties of friendship leads to the well-being of many older parents because the adults will always be there to support them and meet their parents’ needs.
Filial obligation has raised a heated debate among different philosophers with divergent opinions regarding the duties of grown children towards their parents as they grow old. In ‘‘What Do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?’’, Jane English goes against the traditional values, arguing that adults have responsibilities to their parents only if they are on friendly terms with them (English, 1992). English (1992) described duties of friendship as duties established through a constant mutual relationship. According to English (1992), children who enjoy a healthy and happy friendship with their parents have the same kind of duties to them that a good friend would have. Similarly, those who did not enjoy friendship with their parents will have no filial obligations to the parents. She rejected the notion that grown children owe their parents, claiming that the terms 'owe' and 'repay' are applicable in the case of favors (English, 1992). Although English agrees that children ought to do many things for their parents, these things cannot be described as ‘owed’ because parents make sacrifices due to love (English, 1992). As a result, the obligations of adults are those of friends and originate from the love between them and their parents, not repayment for earlier sacrifices.
English’s argument that duties of adults to parents and duties of friendship are similar is subject to criticism. According to English (1992), friendships are aimed at sustaining a continuous relationship instead of meeting obligations of debt and gratitude. She states that this perception meets the proportionality concerns because friendships do not need stringent reciprocity. English further argues that friends do not track every favor they offer. Only bad friends do so. Even though English’s friendship analogy appears to be the most plaus...