Philosophy - Writer’s Main Argument (brothers and Sisters)

Writer’s Main argument (Brothers and Sisters)

First, the author states that we must understand the nature of the relationship that siblings have to each other before analyzing the moral obligations that they have to each other. Brothers and sisters are simply born into the same family and they do not select each other. Even if they do not like each other, they are stuck with each other.

After the author states the nature of brother and sister inherent relationships, Mills claims that brothers and sisters should share each others’ lives to some extent or at the minimum which includes: calling, emailing, seeing each other at family gathers, and keeping each other somehow present in each other’s lives. If brothers and sisters can do Mill’s definition of minimum, they will prevent estrangement to each other.

Another key point to this argument is that brothers and sisters have the ability to experience being in an unchosen and unconditional relationship that only siblings can get with each other. Lastly, brothers and sister do not owe each other what they can get from somebody else. They owe each other value intrinsic goods or the goods of being in the relationship itself.

Writer’s Main argument: Parents and Children:

Parents do not owe their children what their children can get from somebody else. For example, a job, living conditions, money, etc. Parents owe their children unconditional love, interests in their children activities, pride in their accomplishments, advice, and continuing of the relationship itself.

Children owe their parents deference and gratitude. This includes the continuation in the relationship as their children, sharing their lives, caring about their lives, building an ongoing life together. Children do not owe their parents that can easily be provided by others such as financial support.

What is the best objection to both arguments?

The best objection to both arguments (brother and sister/ parents and children) is: why should people be morally obligated to be in a relationship that they do not wish to have any more? This objection plays a huge part of why continue an ongoing relationship when one of the parties wishes to exit the relationship. It forces Mill’s to define how much moral responsibility family members have to each other and how much is necessary to keep the ongoing relationship stable. Also, not every single person has the desire to have great relationships with their family members. Lastly, it forces Mill to answer the question: What if the relationship is so bad that it is better not to continue the relationship.

What was your position on the Debate Question prior to doing the reading? What was the reasoning for your position?

My position on both of the debate questions was affirmative prior to the reading.

My position prior to the reading was that family obligations are different for each family. I understand that family matters are extremely complicated and not everyone has a functional, healthy relationship with their family members.

In terms of the brother and sister argument, I believe that siblings have to try to get along until the relationship is damaged beyond repair. This implies that brothers and sisters will try to get along and if things don’t work out, they do not have a moral obligation towards each other.  Brothers and sisters need to learn how to live together in the same household and once they are mature enough to live by themselves; it is up to them to keep in contact.

In terms of the parents and children obligation, I believe that parents need to provide children with the necessary tools to live such as a roof over their heads, food on the table, and a basic education towards high school. Children need to respect their parents even if they don’t get along because the parents are taking their own money to help raise them. If you want a good relationship between both parties, both parties need to be respected to each other’s needs and learn how to live with each other in harmony.