In accordance to English’s view, we do not “owe” our parents anything. Through her argument by analogy, English attempts to not simply just debunk the traditional “debt model” of filial obligation, but rather replace it with the “friendship model.” She begins by differentiating favors (such as agreeing to taking in a neighbor’s mail while they are away on vacation) and voluntary sacrifices (such as mowing a neighbor’s lawn while they are away on vacation without their asking). She maintains that it is favors that create “debts,” and that voluntary sacrifices require no reciprocation—to do so would be “supererogatory” on their part. Voluntary sacrifices, instead, create friendship. English continues her argument explaining that because friendship …show more content…
While he agrees with the friendship model in regard to filial obligation, he rejects English’s claim that when the friendship ends, the duties of the friendship also end. To ground this claim, he draws the example of an instance in which a “stranger and a former, long-term, close friend (who voluntarily made immense sacrifices throughout [the] friendship) both urgently need a blood transfusion using [his] rare blood type” (Dixon, 290). In such a case, Dixon asserts that his obligation to help his former, close friend is stronger. Because of “the longevity of [their] friendship, and [the] depth of friendship indicated by the sacrifices [his] former friend made for [him], Dixon remarks that this situation is analogous to that of filial obligation, and therefore, even if the “friendship” with his parents ends, his obligation to them does not necessarily end as well. Further, Dixon states “to treat a former close friend as a stranger is to discount [the] former friendship and indirectly [devalue] both” (Dixon, 290) parties, as “both invested part of [themselves] in the friendship” (Dixon, 290). He goes even further, describing those who do this are guilty of “inconstancy” and “inauthenticity,” vices that degrade both the former friend and the friend who “[fails] to acknowledge the connections between the person he is now and the earlier stages of his life” (Dixon, 290). However, with this, he does …show more content…
While we choose our friends, we do not choose our parents. Conversely, while parents voluntarily choose to have us (in most cases), they did not have any say in how would we turn out—personality traits, interests, etc—the very characteristics that help us choose our friends. Given this, the nature of the relationship between our parents is different than our relationship with our friends, therefore making the “friendship model” problematic. To elaborate, imagine a situation in which you cannot choose your friends. Instead, they are imposed and forced upon you. While you and your “friends” have different parents and live in separate homes, these “friends” are the only friends you can have. Without the choice present, these “friendships” would not seem very authentic; it would seem that you are bound to them not because you want to, but because you have to. After all, part of the authenticity in friendships lies in the fact that they are chosen. If then, as English and Dixon claim, our relationship with our parents is analogous to a friendship, it seems that because it is an unchosen relationship, it would be a friendship lacking authenticity. In viewing the parent/child relationship as a “friendship,” Dixon and English discount our relationship with our parent’s own special, intrinsic
In this friendship neither individual requires anything from the other. “There is no question here of any service, or of any demand. The friendship is one of pure, genuine disposition, and is friendship in the absolute sense.” This friendship has no limits or requirements and the individuals within the friendship can throve and deem each other worthy of true friendship. “The point of special importance is this. In ordinary social intercourse and association we do not enter completely into the social relation. The greater part of our disposition is withheld; there is no immediate outpouring of all our feelings, dispositions and judgments. We voice only the judgments that seem advisable in the circumstances. A constraint, a mistrust of others, rests upon all of us, so that we withhold something, concealing our weaknesses to escape contempt, or even withholding our opinions” according to Kant. Though this friendship is the purest of them all Kant believes we should try to open up and be authentic. Kant states that if we can free our constraints meaning fears and give our hearts whole heartedly “we achieve complete communion. That this release may be achieved, each of us needs a friend, one in whom we can confide unreservedly, to whom we can disclose completely all our dispositions and judgments, from whom we can and need hide nothing, to whom we can communicate our whole self. On
Friendship can be debated as both a blessing and a curse; as a necessary part of life to be happy or an unnecessary use of time. Friends can be a source of joy and support, they can be a constant stress and something that brings us down, or anywhere in between. In Book 9 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses to great lengths what friendship is and how we should go about these relationships. In the short story “Melvin in the Sixth Grade” by Dana Johnson, we see the main character Avery’s struggle to find herself and also find friendship, as well as Melvin’s rejection of the notion that one must have friends.
friendship that it is so valuable? And, more specifically, how does this truth fit with
We see this with Owen Meany when John tells us that Owen “gave me more than he ever took from me” (A Prayer for Owen Meany 2.509-511). Even with the death of John’s mother at the hands of Owen these too prove to be the best of friends. A friend is someone who is “A positive influence on your life” (What is Friendship? Friendship.about.com), this friendship proves this theory by the boys helping John finding his identity and Owen’s destiny. Along with friendship in the novel we see the importance of family and the role that it plays throughout the novel.
“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe”( Douglass). This famous quote epitomizes the philosophies of Frederick Douglass, in which he wanted everyone to be treated with dignity; if everyone was not treated with equality, no one person or property would be safe harm. His experience as a house slave, field slave and ship builder gave him the knowledge to develop into a persuasive speaker and abolitionist. In his narrative, he makes key arguments to white abolitionist and Christians on why slavery should be abolished. The key arguments that Frederick Douglass tries to vindicate are that slavery denies slaves of their identity, slavery is also detrimental for the slave owner, and slavery is ungodly.
4. (Ethics 9.250): "A further problem is whether or not a friendship should be broken off when the friend does not remain what he was."
From a young age, most people have gone through many relationships with other people who were not their family. Thus, we often acknowledge these relationships as friendships. But the word friend is too broad, so people categorize their friends into several types. In her book “Necessary Losses: The Lovers, Illusions, Dependencies and Impossible Expectations That All of Us Have to Give Up in Order to Grow”, Judith Viorst divided friendships into six types. Those are convenience friends, special interest friends, historical friends, crossroad friends, cross-generational friends and close friends.
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
Despite finding Harley’s article easier to absorb, I will be providing insight and knowledge of Scannell’s article “Dailiness” as I drew interest into his concepts and ideas behind the notion of temporality of everyday life. After Scannell’s reading, I could see myself reflecting different notions of time and ‘media time’, through his concepts of routinisation and the ‘care structures’ of dailiness I became exposed to the recurring cycle we live in.
Friendship expectations play a huge role in “establishing, maintaining, and terminating friendships” thus playing a factor of ones’ interpretations and through their affiliations (West & Turner, 2016). A companionship is dependent on
It is a common theme throughout history that children “owe” it to their parents to do right by them by any means necessary in return for the parents years of hard work, personal sacrifices, and parental obligations to the child; whether that be through personal sacrifices or simply lending a helping hand. Modern philosophy attempts to disregard the ties of family entirely in order to prove that children do not voluntarily ask for sacrifices of their parents, or even the more dramatic claim – “life.” More conservative philosophers such as Christina Hoff Summers defends the moral duties of the more traditional sense of family and the personal morality involved in the family unit. The ideas presented on the tradition that family duties are stronger bonds than those of friends could potentially affect the overall quality of life in adults. In this paper I am going to argue that the traditional sense of family and its duties are stronger than the duties demanded of friendship.
The author defined "owe" as a form of obligation that is to be fulfilled unwillingly. In support of her argument she presented the case of friendship. When two people are friends they help each other, but they are not obliged to make their share of sacrifices. She stated that the term "owe" undermines the role of mutuality. "Owe" represents obligations that must be fulfilled irrespective of the person's emotions. Thus, the term "owe" should not be used to refer to a child's duties towards his/her parents.
Frienships in young adulthood tend to center on work and parenting activities and the sharing of confidences and advice. Some friendships are extremely intimate and supportive; others are marked by frequent conflict. Some friendships are lifelong; other are fleeting (Hatup & Stevens, 1999) ; Some ‘ best friendships’ are more stable than ties to a lover or spouse.
Chapter 7 says, “every person has a complex relational network or web or relationships that connects individuals to one another (HCOM Book, pg. 182).” “A family is a small social group bound by ties of blood, civil contract, and a commitment to care for and be responsible for one another, often in a shared household (HCOM Book, pg 182).” Our first relationships we are introduced to are with family. From there we learn how to communicate with others outside of our family, to create friendships. The book defines friendship as, “a close and caring relationship between two people that is perceived as mutually
"Friends have a unique loyalty to one another. This loyalty comes not through a sense of duty in the way one may show loyalty to family, kinsfolk or country. Theirs is born out of love, trust and respect. Nurtured on care and understanding. A perfect loyalty that will survive every hardship and endure the rigorous test of time."