Nursing homes are very commonplace in America. Here, people often send their parents to live in nursing homes when they get too old to care for themselves. The question that I will be discussing in this essay is whether children have a moral obligation to care for their parents when their parents get too old to care for themselves. In America, people are concerned very much with their own happiness. We have certain goals and aspirations that we strive towards our entire lives. When a parent is old or sick and needs to be cared for, this often interferes with the goals and aspirations of the children. This is the reason that many people put their parents into nursing homes to be cared for by other people rather than themselves. They simply do not have the time and energy to put towards their parents. All of their energy is focused inward on themselves. My question is that since our parents gave life to us and raised us and cared for us during the important beginning phase of our lives, do we have a moral obligation to return the favor when our parents need taking care of?
In his article, “Grown Children’s Filial Obligation,” Chenyang Li gives the example of a ninety-two year old woman living in the Shandang province of China. She had raised her two sons as a single parent through many hardships. Now that she is old and can’t work, she looks to her sons to help care for her. However, neither of her sons wants to care for her. So, she sued her two sons for failing in their filial duty. The Chinese court ordered her sons to take full responsibility for her living and medical expenses (Chenyang Li 343). This example that Chenyang Li gives has many parallels to American society. Here, the question is whether to put an aged parent in a nursing home or to care for the aged parent at home. Looking at different Eastern and Western ethical perspectives shows a great difference in the ideas about a child’s moral obligation towards their parents. A Western ethical perspective, Utilitarianism, stands on the ground that one shouldn’t have any more of a moral obligation to one’s parents than to any other person on the planet. It is the idea that everyone is equal and everyone should be treated as such. Another Western ethical perspective, Kantian ethics, gives the idea of that everyone should act on moral maxims as if they were to become a universal law. This idea can be shown to lean in favor of caring for parents when they are old, although it does not specifically argue in favor of it. Confucianism, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on the special relationship between a parent and child. Because a parent gives life to a child and raises that child, the child has a great moral obligation towards the parent, especially in caring for them when they are older.
Utilitarian ethics deals with “the problem of how to produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people” (Shanahan, Wang 103). In Utilitarianism this problem is solved with the “greatest happiness principle” or the “principle of utility.” This principle states that “the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged entirely on the basis of the goodness or badness of the consequences that follow from that action,” where “goodness and badness are identical to pleasure and pain” (Shanahan, Wang 104). Jeremy Bentham, who initially proposed Utilitarianism, came up with the idea of hedonistic calculus as a way to choose the best course of action. The idea behind hedonistic calculus is that “pleasure, and hence utility, could be quantified and hence made the basis for social policy” (Shanahan, Wang 104). One would use hedonistic calculus “to weigh the consequences of each alternative in terms of the amount of pleasure and pain resulting for all the people affected by them and then to choose the action that produces the greatest balance of pleasure over pain, that is, the greatest utility” (Shanahan, Wang 104). This idea of hedonistic calculus can be shown with this example: a person has to choose between two competing courses of action. The first would produce seven units of pain (“dolors”) for himself and fifteen units of pleasure (“hedons”) for someone else. Hedons can be seen as positive and dolors negative. The resulting utility (“utiles”) would be eight utiles. The second course of action would produce 15 hedons for himself and 20 dolors for someone else. The resulting utility is 5 utiles. The best course for this person to take would be the first one because it has more net utility than the second one. Notice that although the first course causes pain to the chooser, it is still the one that should be chosen. The thing that matters most “is the total quantity of utility produced, regardless of who happens to be enjoying the pleasure of suffering the pain” (Shanahan, Wang 104).
The problem with Utilitarianism in relation to morality within the family is that it doesn’t take into account special relationships and moral obligations we have towards certain people like friends and family. Take the example given by Peter Singer of a person “about to dine with three friends when his father calls saying he is ill and asking him to visit” (Sommers 334). Using hedonistic calculus, which doesn’t take into account the quality of the resulting utility, but only the quantity, the three friends would have more pleasure from the person’s company compared to the pleasure of one father. The special relationship that the person has with his father is not taken into account at all, “nor is any weight given to the history of the filial relationship which typically includes some two decades of parental care and nurture” (Sommers 334).
Looking at the idea of caring for parents when they are too old to care for themselves, Utilitarianism would say that one has no moral obligation to care for one’s parents unless it will produce more pleasure than not caring for them. It doesn’t look at the special relationship between a child and its parents. If taking a stranger into one’s home produced more pleasure and less pain than taking one’s own parent into the home, then that would be the right course of action to take. Proponents of Utilitarianism would say that this is a good thing because it keeps us from favoring certain people. They would say that we should treat everyone as equals. However, the relationship between a child and its parents is so much more meaningful than that between a person and an acquaintance. A child who has been cared for all of its life by the parents should have more of a moral obligation towards the parents than towards somebody that it has just met. Utilitarianism “is not very accommodating to the special relations,” and this is one of the main objections to Utilitarianism (Sommers 334).
Another problem for Utilitarianism is the idea of the quality of pleasure rather than just the quantity of pleasure. Bentham doesn’t distinguish between higher and lower pleasures, only the amount of pleasure. This is a problem because there are certain pleasures that people would choose over other pleasures. According to John Stuart Mill, “a pleasure is of higher quality when people would choose it over another pleasure even if it was accompanied by discomfort and if they would not trade it for a greater amount of the other pleasure. Given equal access of different pleasures, they would choose the higher pleasure” (Class Notes). So, the problem is now establishing what makes some pleasures superior to others. What do we mean when we say higher pleasures and lower pleasures? Is it in terms of education, intellect, or some other standard? The problem can be applied to the moral obligations that children have towards their parents because how can one decide the right course of action if one doesn’t have a set standard for higher and lower pleasures. Looking at the example of a person who has to choose between dinner with three friends or visiting his sick parents, the pleasure that the sick parent gets from seeing a child may be higher than the pleasure that the friends get from having dinner with a friend. Although this adds a whole new fundamental standard other than quantitative pleasure, it never gets past the idea that all people are equal. It still does not address the fact that there are special relationships, especially between parents and children, which require more moral obligations than other relationships.
Kantian ethics, unlike Utilitarianism, doesn’t say outright that there isn’t a special relationship between parents and children. It is more of a way to choose the right moral laws to follow. There are three important components of Kant’s moral philosophy. The first is “The Principle of Autonomy.” This states that we know, without anyone telling us, what we ought to do because of the moral requirements that we place on ourselves. Because of this, we can effectively control ourselves in self-government. Although the requirements we place on ourselves often oppose what we desire, we nevertheless always have sufficient motive to act as we ought. Therefore, we need no external source of motivation for our self-legislation to be effective in controlling our behavior. The second component is known as “The Categorical Imperative.” This categorical imperative is the moral law that we impose upon ourselves. Kant “thought that people should always act in ways that could serve as rules for anyone to act on in similar circumstances” (Shanahan, Wang 81). The categorical imperative is formulated in several ways – “The Formula of Universal Law,” “The Formula of the Law of Nature,” “The Formula of the End in Itself” and “The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends” – but Kant maintains that they all mean the same thing. The last component of Kant’s moral philosophy is the noumenal/phenomenal distinction. The phenomenal world is the world as we see it through “our constructs of space, time and causality, which are not objective features of the world, but rather are mental structures that we human beings each possess and use to organize our experience of it” (Class Notes). The Noumenal world is “the world as it really is in and of itself, independent of anything that we, or ay other creature, might bring to it” (Class Notes). According to this noumenal/phenomenal distinction, “our freedom is grounded in our noumenal selves. As noumenal beings, we are not determined by cause and effect, and we are able to start our own causal chains in the phenomenal world” (Class Notes). The relationship between these three components of Kant’s moral philosophy is that the fact that “we have a palpable sense of the moral law within us when we feel that we ought to act, or have acted, a certain way” implies that we are free to act in different ways (Class Notes). This “freedom does not come from the phenomenal realm, but rather stems from our noumenal natures. Ultimately, we know that we are free because we have the power to author moral laws and follow them despite any conflicting pathological inclinations” (Class Notes).
The Categorical Imperative can be looked at through the lens of moral obligations between parents and children. The first, “The Formula of Universal Law,” says to “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Under this formula, each person has the ability to make universal laws that will apply to everyone else. For example, if one was to act on the maxim that old parents should be taken care of in the home of the children, then this would become a universal law that everyone would follow. This is definitely something feasible and even favorable to the other option of leaving parents in a nursing home. The next formula is “The Formula of the Law of Nature.” It says, “Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a Universal Law of Nature” (Class Notes). This means that “you should not act on any principle or policy that, were it to become the rule for how everyone acts, would destroy or undermine a vitally important societal practice” (Shanahan, Wang 81). A historically important societal practice is respect for one’s elders, most especially, one’s parents. By taking care of one’s parents at home rather than sending them to a nursing home to be taken care of by a stranger, one is showing respect towards one’s parents, which is following the important societal practice. If one was to act on the maxim that aged parents should be sent to a nursing home, then this would be undermining a historically important societal practice. Another formula is “The Formula of the End in Itself.” This says, “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Class Notes). If a person were to send a parent who has raised them and cared for them to a nursing home, they are not treating the parent as an end in itself. The person has used the parent earlier in life; he has used the parents love, energy, money, etc as a way to grow up and be cared for and get what they want. The person has used the parent and sent them away to be cared for by some stranger. Treating the parent as an end in itself would be caring for the parent as the parent once cared for them. This would show the parent that they “have unconditioned and absolute value,” that “they are not valued merely as instrumental for attaining some other end” (Class Notes). The last formula is “The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends,” which says to “act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of the kingdom of ends” (Class Notes). This formula is very similar to “The Formula of Universal Law.” Treat every action as though it were to become a law in the kingdom of ends. Taking care of one’s family would definitely be a great law in this kingdom of ends and it is for this reason that Kantian ethics is able to be used in favor of caring for one’s parents when they’re old.
In Confucianism, “the goal of the moral life is to cultivate a certain kind of character,” this character being that of chun tzu, “man at his best” or “the gentlemen” (Shanahan, Wang 132). In order to achieve this, one must do three things. The first is that one must do what is right and avoid actions that are wrong. The second is that one must do the first with the correct motive and the third is that one must develop a good moral character, one that will keep a person aligned with moral goodness. In striving for chun tzu, one must embody certain concepts or characteristics that are essential to reach chun tzu. The first is jen, “which stands for the ideal relationship among human beings” and “is often translated as benevolence but also suggests the virtues of gentility, magnanimity, humanity, compassion, love, altruism, kindness, and goodness of character” (Shanahan, Wang 134). The second is shu, which is a good habit of reciprocity that expresses jen. One follows shu because it expresses jen. One thing that is essential for chun tzu is a good society. A good society fosters good individuals who will in turn foster benevolence for the society. It nurtures virtue in general and in particular circumstances; it teaches us how to be well and act well in social relationships.
According to Confucius, there are four crucial societal conditions for a good society. The first is li, which are “conventional codes of conduct that instructed individual on how to conduct themselves, especially in public” (Shanahan, Wang 132). It refers to rites and ceremonies which teach decorum or good form. Li creates social cohesion or unity within a society because it allows one to express proper feelings during proper times and allows one to internalize the virtues that one is expressing. It is important for rulers to follow proper li as an example to the people. The people will follow by example and observe proper li and the rulers won’t have to impose it by force. The second condition is chang-ming, which is “the reification of names.” This is the idea that there must be an agreement between names and words and what they stand for or the deeds the name. This idea arose because of the difference between what the rulers said and what they did. If rulers don’t do what they say, then the subjects’ loyalty will erode, which will erode the society. There should be no difference between the word and the deed for both the ruler and subject. The third condition is chi. Chi is knowledge. More specifically, it is knowledge of the ancient Chinese classics. Rulers should know these classics so that they know what the right thing to do is. They should be able to apply the knowledge to all aspects of ruling, from laws to educational programs. The last condition is the idea of Hsiao, which is respect or a feeling of reverence for one’s father and for all elders.
This last idea of Hsiao is especially important because the family is the building block of society. In order to have a good society, one must first have harmony within the family, because “harmony within the family is the source and precondition for achieving right order in society” (Shanahan, Wang 134). Respect between youth and elders will ensure that the wisdom of the past is passed on. Elders are motivated to teach those they respect and youth are motivated to learn from those they respect. In addition to this, “practicing the fundamental virtue of filial piety is the first step toward moral perfection. Cultivating genuine feelings for your parents enhances your personal dignity and identity. It does not demand unconditional submissiveness to your parents, but rather the recognition that a special kind of reverence is due them” (Shanahan, Wang 134). The idea of Hsiao, or filial piety, in Confucian thought is very important. It not only leads to a good and virtuous society, but also leads you down the path to moral perfection.
Filial piety stems from the idea that “the greatest favor a person has ever received is from his parents, their giving him birth and bringing him up. This favor is so great that a person can never completely ‘repay’ it. Thus he is in a lifetime obligation to serve his parents” (Chenyang Li 344). Looking at this Confucian idea, a person’s moral responsibility would be to care for one’s parents when they are too old to care for themselves. One owes one’s parents everything because they are the reason that one is alive. Mencuis said “that one criterion of a good society is that there are no people with gray hair (old people) carrying heavy burdens on the street” (Chenyang Li 343). Filial piety is a very important idea in Confucianism. It is exemplified in Confucius’ belief that “a person should not go far from home while his parents are alive; and if he has to go far from home, he should let his parents know his whereabouts in case they need him” (Chenyang Li 343). It is a child’s duty to serve their parents and it would be impossible to do this if a child lived in a different place than their parents. It would also be impossible for a child to care for a parent’s needs if the child put the parent in a nursing home. This is why “a son at home should never send his aged parents away, not to a nursing home, not anywhere” (Chenyang Li 343).
It is never an easy thing to put your life, your goals and aspirations on hold for somebody else. However, the special relationship that one has with a parent requires that one does so. Children owe a lot to their parents. Parents give life to their children. Parents raise their children. Parents give everything they can to make sure their children grow up happy and never go without. It is for this reason that when the time comes, children have a moral obligation to take care of their parents. It is their duty to show respect and love and to care for their own parents rather than have a stranger care for them. Nursing homes should never be an option when one has the means to care for an aged parent at home.
Shanahan, Timothy, Wang, Robin. Reason and Insight: Western and Eastern Perspectives on the Pursuit of Moral Wisdom. Second Edition.
