Filial Obligation, Kant's Duty of Beneficence, and Need

In James M. Humber & Robert F. Almeder (eds.), Care of the Aged. Springer. pp. 169-197 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Do adult children have a particular duty, or set of duties, to their aging parents? What might the normative source and content of filial obligation be? This chapter examines Kant’s duty of beneficence in The Doctrine of Virtue and the Groundwork, suggesting that at its core, performance of filial duty occurs in response to the needs of aging parents. The duty of beneficence accounts for inevitable vulnerabilities that befall human rational beings and reveals moral agents as situated in communities of dependence and mutual aid. Other accounts of filial obligation, such as those based on a notion of gratitude, virtue, or friendship, generate various difficulties and fail to adequately address and emphasize four morally significant features of the adult child/ aging parent relationship. First, the relationship between adult children and their aging parents is one of dependency created by the increasing frailty and need of those parents. Second, the obligations that adult children have to aging parents take place in the context of a relationship not voluntarily assumed, but not coerced. Third, given a cultural tendency toward paternalistic care of elderly individuals, the content of filial obligation should safeguard against such treatment. Fourth, because dependency relations between adult children and aging parents can involve an immense degree of sacrifice on the part of the caretaker, an acknowledgment of duties should be accompanied by a concurrent acknowledgment of the necessary limitation of duties. Addressing these four issues is essential in offering a coherent account of the normative source, content, nature, and scope of adult children’s duty to care for their aging parents. This essay demonstrates that the Kantian duty of beneficence, when functioning as the philosophical foundation of filial obligation, allows for ample light to be shed upon and for proper analysis to take place of these four issues.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Filial Obligations: A Comparative Study.Cecilia Wee - 2014 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 13 (1):83-97.
A Kantian Ethic of Care?Sarah Clark Miller - 2005 - In Barbara S. Andrew, Jean Clare Keller & Lisa H. Schwartzman (eds.), Feminist Interventions in Ethics and Politics: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kantian Ethics: Value, Agency, and Obligation.Robert Stern - 2015 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.
Shifting perspectives: Filial morality revisited.Chenyang Li - 1997 - Philosophy East and West 47 (2):211-232.
Filial Obligation in Contemporary China: Evolution of the Culture‐System.Xiaoying Qi - 2015 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 45 (1):141-161.
Kant on the Duty of Virtue and Oneself's End.Yung-Chung Lin - 2009 - Philosophy and Culture 36 (2):93-117.
Kantian Beneficence and the Problem of Obligatory Aid.Karen Stohr - 2011 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (1):45-67.
The Obligation to Resist Oppression.Carol Hay - 2011 - Journal of Social Philosophy 42 (1):21-45.
Shareholder Theory and Kant’s ‘Duty of Beneficence’.Samuel Mansell - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 117 (3):583-599.
A Fact, As It Were: Obligation, Indifference, and the Question of Ethics.Bryan Lueck - 2016 - Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (1):219-234.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-03-08

Downloads
707 (#24,164)

6 months
118 (#36,319)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sarah Miller
Pennsylvania State University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references