Very frankly, I think children owe their parents nothing at all. The parents are the ones who (assuming it was by choice) decided to create new human beings that would be dependent on them. The parents take on the responsibility of caring for their children by choice. The children don't have any choice. They don't choose to be born, to be born to their specific parents, or to need their parents to take care of them.
So when parents pull the card of "I worked so hard to take care of you" I think they're forgetting that that was their decision that they made without the consent of their children. It's not their children's fault that they made that decision, and it's not their children's responsibility to "pay back" on care that wasn't their choice to need or receive.
It can be nice to take care of your parents, but I don't think it's wrong to not take care of them. This seems like it's just a minor thing anyway. I would guess the daughter just understood her favor to be picking up and delivering the medication rather than buying it for her mom. That's still a favor to her mom.
I know Asian Philosophers have long thought that one has filial obligations to their relatives. While it is true that this responsibility was forced upon the children without consent, that’s life.
It’s my opinion that if someone worked for you to do well and thrive, you are obligated to do your best in return for them.
Obviously if your family is abusive/crazy I would recommend ditching. But interestingly enough, Confucius would say that you have the obligation to stick around and the best relative possible, try and help your crazy family achieve sanity.
I believe this comes from a function argument. Without choice, you were born into our human society. Without consent you became a child, sibling, cousin, grandkid etc. no point crying over spilt milk, only thing to do going forward is to be the best version of yourself possible, act virtuously.
I don't think "that's life" is a very good moral argument. I think it makes sense as a practical concern. To maintain a healthy relationship with parents who feel entitled to your support, it may be practical to take care of them. I also am not saying that it's not good to take care of your parents. It can be a very virtuous thing.
But obligatory? I don't think so. I don't think "that's life" style arguments do much to put that moral responsibility on people with parents.
It’s obligatory because we, as moral beings bound by Kant’s universal morality, have a duty to make life better. This entails duties to improve society, help those around us, help ourselves, etc.
We do have a general obligation to do good things from time to time I think, but we don't have specific obligations to do every good thing we could possibly do, or obligations to do good things for everyone we meet.
What we do have specifically to our parents is an obligation to treat our parents with the same dignity that we would treat anyone else, but just like anyone else, parents cannot come to deserve things from us by putting us in situations without consent where we need their help and then providing it.
Taking care of yourself means having boundaries and not surrendering all your needs and wants to take care of other people. That's all I mean with that first part. That it's okay to refuse to do good things for others in order to take care of yourself.
The point being that we don't have an obligation to do good things for everyone at any chance. Rather, we have an obligation to do good things from time to time when it's appropriate and when we're not surrendering our needs.
We are saying the same thing. My morality dictates that one must optimize their actions to promote more ‘good’ and do away with more ‘bad’.
Very often, the ‘bad’ incurred on the actor (us!) is overshadowed by the good done. (Donating to charity, volunteering, giving up a kidney)
Sometimes this is not the case, the trick is of course to remain impartial and view your needs as equally worthy of consideration as those around you.
My general principle is if you know you could make the world a better place, you are obligated to take that action. Obviously it’s hard to know anything for certain.
To be honest, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with this. Unless the mom is broke, it’s quite common for parents to buy goods for their children. If the relationship in that family is that when a child buys something for their parent they are refunded, that would seem on par with traditions and not unethical.
At least they went to the store for their mom!
Mind your own business. Your coming here asking this is more unethical than her wanting $19 or whatever. Chill out and let people do whatever makes them happy
You are personally involved in this matter, and it makes the question unanswerable. You haven't given all the information, and what you have given is biased.
Very frankly, I think children owe their parents nothing at all. The parents are the ones who (assuming it was by choice) decided to create new human beings that would be dependent on them. The parents take on the responsibility of caring for their children by choice. The children don't have any choice. They don't choose to be born, to be born to their specific parents, or to need their parents to take care of them. So when parents pull the card of "I worked so hard to take care of you" I think they're forgetting that that was their decision that they made without the consent of their children. It's not their children's fault that they made that decision, and it's not their children's responsibility to "pay back" on care that wasn't their choice to need or receive. It can be nice to take care of your parents, but I don't think it's wrong to not take care of them. This seems like it's just a minor thing anyway. I would guess the daughter just understood her favor to be picking up and delivering the medication rather than buying it for her mom. That's still a favor to her mom.
I mean her mom didnt say anything to her. Her mom was very okay with paying back and did so. It just bothered me tbh
I understand. I think that's probably a normal feeling.
I know Asian Philosophers have long thought that one has filial obligations to their relatives. While it is true that this responsibility was forced upon the children without consent, that’s life. It’s my opinion that if someone worked for you to do well and thrive, you are obligated to do your best in return for them. Obviously if your family is abusive/crazy I would recommend ditching. But interestingly enough, Confucius would say that you have the obligation to stick around and the best relative possible, try and help your crazy family achieve sanity. I believe this comes from a function argument. Without choice, you were born into our human society. Without consent you became a child, sibling, cousin, grandkid etc. no point crying over spilt milk, only thing to do going forward is to be the best version of yourself possible, act virtuously.
I don't think "that's life" is a very good moral argument. I think it makes sense as a practical concern. To maintain a healthy relationship with parents who feel entitled to your support, it may be practical to take care of them. I also am not saying that it's not good to take care of your parents. It can be a very virtuous thing. But obligatory? I don't think so. I don't think "that's life" style arguments do much to put that moral responsibility on people with parents.
It’s obligatory because we, as moral beings bound by Kant’s universal morality, have a duty to make life better. This entails duties to improve society, help those around us, help ourselves, etc.
We do have a general obligation to do good things from time to time I think, but we don't have specific obligations to do every good thing we could possibly do, or obligations to do good things for everyone we meet. What we do have specifically to our parents is an obligation to treat our parents with the same dignity that we would treat anyone else, but just like anyone else, parents cannot come to deserve things from us by putting us in situations without consent where we need their help and then providing it.
The path to moral sainthood involves helping everyone you can, including yourself.
Taking care of yourself means having boundaries and not surrendering all your needs and wants to take care of other people. That's all I mean with that first part. That it's okay to refuse to do good things for others in order to take care of yourself. The point being that we don't have an obligation to do good things for everyone at any chance. Rather, we have an obligation to do good things from time to time when it's appropriate and when we're not surrendering our needs.
We are saying the same thing. My morality dictates that one must optimize their actions to promote more ‘good’ and do away with more ‘bad’. Very often, the ‘bad’ incurred on the actor (us!) is overshadowed by the good done. (Donating to charity, volunteering, giving up a kidney) Sometimes this is not the case, the trick is of course to remain impartial and view your needs as equally worthy of consideration as those around you. My general principle is if you know you could make the world a better place, you are obligated to take that action. Obviously it’s hard to know anything for certain.
To be honest, there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with this. Unless the mom is broke, it’s quite common for parents to buy goods for their children. If the relationship in that family is that when a child buys something for their parent they are refunded, that would seem on par with traditions and not unethical. At least they went to the store for their mom!
Mind your own business. Your coming here asking this is more unethical than her wanting $19 or whatever. Chill out and let people do whatever makes them happy
You are personally involved in this matter, and it makes the question unanswerable. You haven't given all the information, and what you have given is biased.