The Duty of Obligation Essays

The Duty of Obligation Essays The Duty of Obligation Paper The Duty of Obligation Paper Essay Topic: Second Treatise of Government In this paper I will show the circumstances under which parents have a stronger obligation to care for their children, in accordance with Locke’s concept of tacit consent. I will also describe the certain conditions in which children should obey their parents using the idea of Rawls’ fair play. When a couple decides to have a child they are agreeing to be responsible for the life they bring into the world. According to Locke, the conditions for tacit consent begin with being aware of the situation and the consequences. Secondly, there must be a period of consideration available. Thirdly, the consequences of not accepting cannot be detrimental. Therefore, when a couple has sex knowing that they run the risk of pregnancy, they are aware of the situation. When a couple finds out that the woman is pregnant and they talk about possible outcomes, this suffices a consideration period and provides a reasonable way to express objections. For the third requisite the couple only has two options. They can choose to have the baby or they can choose to have an abortion. The option they choose depends on which outcome would be most detrimental to them personally. For example, a 13 year-old girl who gets pregnant might feel that being pregnant could jeopardize her life in a social or educational aspect. She may feel it is more detrimental than another person who is in the same situation but does not believe in abortion. Locke would suggest the best decision would be the most moral one. Thus, let us assume the couple has the child but cannot provide for it. Imagine that they were young, did not have a steady income and had no place to live so they gave the child up for adoption. Locke would argue that this is the most moral alternative for the couple. The child has a right from the parents to receive the basic means to survive: Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and though it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another’s bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation: yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common offspring, who have a right to be nourished and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves. (Locke, 37) In the Second Treatise of Government Locke describes that a child has the right to be nourished and maintained by its parents until the child is able to tend for itself. If children have the right to be cared for by their parents, then the parents must be obligated to provide the necessary essentials for living. I think Locke would agree that if a couple could not offer their offspring the care and nourishment needed to survive, that finding someone who could would be the best solution in this case. If parents have an obligation to care for their children, do children therefore have an obligation to obey their parents? Under Rawls’ principle of fair play, children have an obligation to obey their parents if the circumstance meets certain stipulations. First, a mutually beneficial and just scheme of social cooperation must be present. Cooperation comes through some type of cost, or effort. Finally, the advantages that succumb can only be obtained if all, or nearly all cooperate. However, if the majority participates, benefits can still be obtained without cooperation. Let us imagine a situation in which a drug addict mother is raising a child alone. Suppose she has no job and is on welfare. One month she blows her entire check buying drugs and has no money to pay the rent. She tells her 11 year-old son to go out and sell drugs to try to get money to pay the bills. Her son disobeys her because he does not want to be a drug dealer and end up an addict like his mother. Rawls would assert that the son does not have an obligation to obey his mother. According to the principle of fair play, in this situation there is no scheme of social cooperation and there is no mutual benefits. Rawls would also argue that the child does not have a prima facie obligation to obey his mother: I shall assume, as requiring no argument, that there is, at least in a society such as ours, a moral obligation to obey the law, although it may, of course, be overridden in certain cases by other more stringent obligations. I shall assume that this obligation must rest on some general moral principle; that is, it must depend on some principle of justice or upon some principle of social utility or the common good, and the like. (Rawls, 144) If the child were to obey his mother he would be violating his own morals and the justice system. He disobeys his mother out of personal belief and the respect for the law. I will now describe a scenario in which Rawls would agree that the child has an obligation to obey his or her parents. Suppose two other children (teenagers) grow up in the same neighborhood as the drug addict mother and 11 year-old son from the previous example. In this example the mother works all day long in order to barely pay the bills and put food on the table. She tries to make sure that her children stay off the streets and helps them with their homework. The mother tells the children that they need to get after school jobs to help with the bills. Only one child obeys. This example complies with the requirements of the principle of fair play. Rawls would argue that in this instance, the units of the family are cooperative in the sense that the mother works extremely hard to provide the best environment she can for her children. The majority of the family cooperates and sacrifices to ensure the security of a place to call home. This example also shows how one can benefit from the situation by not cooperating. The teenager who did not get a job benefits from the hard work of the mother and sibling. The teenager who does not actively participate in contributing still benefits from having a roof over above their head, food, and electricity. Suppose we combine the two examples I have just described and form a third example in which a mother who works just as hard as the mother in example two but the children, despite the mothers good intentions, rebel and fall into dealing drugs and the life of crime. Let us suppose that in this scenario the teenagers are dealing drugs in the house and have no respect for their mother who earns an honest living to provide for them. In example one I explained how parents are obligated to care for their children through tacit consent. Locke stated that children have the right to be nourished and maintained by their parents until they are old enough to provide for themselves. It is illogical to think that in a situation such as this that a parent is responsible for paying the rent, providing nourishment, and showing affection to children who do not even respect the rules of the household. Is a parent still obligated to their children if their children’s actions jeopardize their moral beliefs, violate their parental authority, and place the family in danger? Perhaps what Locke means is that the parent must try to provide for their children. If the intention of the parent is to look after the welfare of their child even if the child disobeys the parent, the parent is still obliging to the rules of tacit consent. The parent still wishes to help and care for her children but if by doing so she is putting herself in severe danger she must take drastic measures. Locke strives for the good of the whole, â€Å"no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions†(Locke, 32). This idea that Locke applies to the Law of Nature can be applied to this example. Locke would likely argue that the mother should not have to subject herself to a dangerous atmosphere. Yet, she still is obligated to be concerned for welfare of her children despite their lifestyle and even if she cannot help them. In conclusion, a parent’s obligation to a child is stronger than a child’s obligation to a parent. The reason is because under tacit consent a parent agrees to take care of the child. Even if the child does not obey the parent when he should, the parent is still bound to see to his well-being. However, if the parent does not fulfill the obligations to the welfare of the child, the child does not have to obey the parent. To decide if a child has to obey his parents the situation or demand must be applied to the principle of fair play.