Neglecting one’s parents is a morally wrongful thing to do for yourself as a person. However, in certain circumstances, if a parent has done wrong to their child this will influence the grown child greatly and what their decisions are about their parents. Certain obligations have to be fuffilled because it a comfortable social norm that has modern aspects to it and is not barbaric. It is the normal needs and expectancies of all people : food, drink and any kind of shelter. Grown children should be at least mature enough to provide for their parents what the government provides to mass murderers in jails. In a word it is the “human” thing to do such natural things for any person no matter what they have done.
Jane English author of “What do grown children owe there parents” takes on these issues and says grown children have nothing at all to owe their parents. She explains her views of reciprocity, sacrifice and to friendship topical to parents and adult children alike. In one of her analogies, she explains the case for Nina and Max. Max asks her a favor to get his mail for him while he is on vacation. Max is now indebted to Nina which follows the law of reciprocity. Favors owed create debts and now Max owes.
However in the sacrifice case, Nina takes in the mail just because she wants to do something nice but Max is not indebted to her at all, he did not ask her to do such a thing for him at all. This case indicates parental sacrifice and plants firmly that grown children don’t have to do anything for their parents beyond normal human needs just because they made so much sacrifice in them.
In English’s friendship case, Max does not owe Nina anything either just because friendship is a lot different from reciprocity. If Max cares to do so, he will for Nina based on mutual respect. A mutual respectful friendship with parents can work somewhat, but not to an extreme I think. Joseph Kupler almost totally disagrees of English’s friendship case.
Joseph Kupfer author of “ Can Parents and children be friends?” This question is almost no. Children can’t be friends with their own parents. I am kind of neutral of Kupfer ideals. He says that children can’t be friends with their parents based on a apparent lack of autonomy because of their parents influence over their basic charcter and identity. This statement really lacks competence because while their parents do influence them when they are young, English’s statement is about adult children who hardly get influence from their parents on character and identity. Again, Kupfer goes into how children lack the independence for a true friendship, but when adult childen gain that independence they can be almost great friends. The argument that stops friendship from being the best friendship ever had is that Kupfer said we don’t have complete independence from our parents for a true friendship being that we are not as unique being from the same blood and same body.
Certain things spoke in these two articles have a similar relevance no matter if they differ on the ideas of reciprocity, sacrifice and of friendship. Both authors collectively draw upon the basic needs of a human being and in that respect, they both agree.