Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gameshot911 1258 days ago
Children have a "responsibility" for their parents in the same way that a tourist has a "responsibility" to give money to those people who run up and tie a bracelet to your wrist, then demand payment. It was a unilateral action - the tourist didn't ask for it, even if they (or did not) benefit from it.

"Kind"? "Nice to do"? Sure.

But a responsibility? Absolutely not.

5 comments

Responsibility is probably a socio cultural construct here. My perspective is one absolutely does have responsibility to their parents (exceptional circumstances aside), but I have noticed that as one of the major differences between north America and where I grew up (on both sides of the life equation mind you: where I was born kids weren't supposed to get jobs in high school or pay rent until at least out of university,and generally stay in their family home until they're ready to start their own family. Whereas my grade 12 in Minnesota, everybody was looking to get as far away from their parents for university as humanly possible, and those that didn't had to start paying in - whether rent or car insurance or something. So it feels like the social contract is simply different, even if it feels cold to me :)
Responsibility is always socially constructed. The idea that one person can “owe” another doesn’t exist without people. It’s not a law of nature.

That said, we have drifted very far from the nasty, brutish, and short version of prehistoric society, where your parents might be some of the main people you ever interacted with. Taking care of your parents in that context is quite obvious, because when you were helpless they took care of you, and otherwise no one will take care of them.

> Taking care of your parents in that context is quite obvious, because when you were helpless they took care of you

Well, let's be clear, that is far from universally true.

There's also degrees of care.

I absolutely see where the GP is coming from: my parents chose to have me, I didn't choose to have them. So why would I owe them for simply living up to the responsibilities they chose to take on?

Now, for amazing, supportive parents, the child will want to support and care for their parents when the time comes.

But not everyone has good parents, and I do not believe a child has a responsibility to care for an absent, abusive, or otherwise bad parent simply by dint of genetics.

That is a perspective with support, but I don’t believe it is commonly held. I’ll posit that the vast majority of people are happy at the the fact they exist and so feel there is some degree of obligation to those that enabled that to happen, even outside the normal bonds of familial affection.

This belief is common enough that in some circumstances you have not just a moral but legal responsibility to support your parents:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filial_responsibility_laws

Children taking responsibility for elderly parents is how society has functioned for millenia. It's a good system.
I disagree. I hope my children do not spend inordinate amount of resources helping me. I want them to live life while they are young and healthy.

If I ever need day to day care for basic needs, I hope I can put myself out of my misery. I want society’s resources to go towards the young, not to keep 80+ year olds limping along.

I watched my parents spend their youth taking care of day to day needs for my dad’s elderly parents. What a waste. My grandparents lived far too long, especially at my mom’s expense.

That’s one way to look at it. Here’s another: unless you have an identical twin, there’s no one on the planet who is more closely related to you than your parents are. To a first order approximation, you are them.

No one can make you care about other people, but if you choose to do so, your parents are a pretty good choice. They are the only people on the planet who will love you without contingencies. And they won’t be around forever.

This is the wrong analogy to use