Jane English What Grown Children Owe Their Parents Essay
An Evaluation of English's What Grown Children Owe Their Parents
By Goh Jialing Caryn
In her article, Jane English proposes a theory that grown children owe nothing to their parents on the basis that the parent-child relationship is one which leans toward friendship and not indebtedness. According to English, the moral obligation grown children hence have towards their parents is no more than the kind we have towards friends or loved ones.
She illustrates the two similar, but distinct, relations with the use of several scenarios. In my essay, I will analyze and break down some of these examples or counter-examples by clearly establishing the strength of inference hence validity, as well as the premises and conclusion.
English's main argument can be structured simplistically as follows: all parent-child relationships are friendships, no friendships incur debts, and therefore no parent-child relationships incur debts.
P1: All P are F
P2: No F incurs debts
C1: No P incurs debts
By Categorical Syllogism, her argument is deductively valid. Hence, accepting the all the premises commits us to accepting the conclusion. By accepting English's conclusion …show more content…
moving the lawn, taking out the garbage are all simple acts which can be subjected to agreement or objection from either party. In mothering a child however, it is a long and arduous journey which cannot, unlike in Max and Nina's case, be appealed to the consent of the child party. It is impossible to ask a pre-borne child, if he or she would like to be brought up by the parents. In English's example, Max would not be indebted to Nina had she voluntarily sacrificed herself, as opposed to Max asking Nina for the favor beforehand. The impossibility of a counter-example to the case of parental upbringing is a serious flaw in English's argument using this analogy. English has committed the fallacy of weak
By Goh Jialing Caryn
In her article, Jane English proposes a theory that grown children owe nothing to their parents on the basis that the parent-child relationship is one which leans toward friendship and not indebtedness. According to English, the moral obligation grown children hence have towards their parents is no more than the kind we have towards friends or loved ones.
She illustrates the two similar, but distinct, relations with the use of several scenarios. In my essay, I will analyze and break down some of these examples or counter-examples by clearly establishing the strength of inference hence validity, as well as the premises and conclusion.
English's main argument can be structured simplistically as follows: all parent-child relationships are friendships, no friendships incur debts, and therefore no parent-child relationships incur debts.
P1: All P are F
P2: No F incurs debts
C1: No P incurs debts
By Categorical Syllogism, her argument is deductively valid. Hence, accepting the all the premises commits us to accepting the conclusion. By accepting English's conclusion …show more content…
moving the lawn, taking out the garbage are all simple acts which can be subjected to agreement or objection from either party. In mothering a child however, it is a long and arduous journey which cannot, unlike in Max and Nina's case, be appealed to the consent of the child party. It is impossible to ask a pre-borne child, if he or she would like to be brought up by the parents. In English's example, Max would not be indebted to Nina had she voluntarily sacrificed herself, as opposed to Max asking Nina for the favor beforehand. The impossibility of a counter-example to the case of parental upbringing is a serious flaw in English's argument using this analogy. English has committed the fallacy of weak