Defining Parenthood and Its Relation To What Children Owe Parents

First, I would like to offer a definition of parenthood that pertains to what children owe their parents. Often we treat the words, "parent," "father," and "mother" in a narrow biological and legal sense. In the narrow sense, being a parent means you are either a father or a mother; father and mother refer to a specific gender (male and female) who has biologically helped conceive the child and/or has legal custody of the child. I use "and/or" in the previous sentence as we often consider parents who adopt children to be the father or mother of the said child, despite no biological connection. However, I think there is a somewhat broader definition that we should accept as a more proper definition of parent, father, and mother. This broader definition maintains all of the parts of the narrow sense, but includes that the biological and legal responsibilities of parent lead to a duty on behalf of the parent/father/mother that they shelter, feed, clothe, and promote the general well-being of their child.

No doubt the ambiguity contained in the statement of "general well-being" might cause worry for some (i.e. what exactly promotes general well-being?), but further fleshing out of that idea would require a much longer paper and for now I would hope that it seems a reasonable duty on the part of the parent. Others might question the purpose the added requirement to fulfill the definition of being parent/mother/father (i.e. what does this definition give us that the narrow sense does not?). I argue that this is important because a true parent cannot simply be contained in a biological and legal sense. This point is very much in line with Jane English's point that parents want to foster a sense of love and friendship between themselves and their child. It is not enough for a parent to merely birth or aid the conception of a child, they have merely met the biological requirements of being a parent. This seems to agree somewhat with our intuitions: If a parent does not care for the child in a way that fosters a sense of love and friendship, such as a parent who physically abuses their child, we think of them as a bad parent. However, instead of merely thinking of them as a "bad parent" we should think of them as a person who has failed to meet the requirements of being a successful parent. Our language does not have a word for such a type of person, so we have to describe them as a bad parent, but I think it is more accurate to describe the failure to complete this duty as a failure to be a parent.

So, if we accept the broader definition of parent/mother/father, what impact does that have on what children owe their parents? I believe this ends up supporting Jane English's conclusion: the parent has merely fulfilled their duty as a parent and the child does not owe anything to the parent. Some might want to argue that the child holds a similar duty to the parent, but I do not think this is true as the biological and legal factors that create the duty for the parents are not present with a child. This tracks with English's argument that the child did not ask to be created, so there is no reciprocal duty. However, I would hope that a child would respect the love and friendship created by parent who has fulfilled their duty (and subsequently, matches the broader definition of being a parent). In other words, it is rather blameworthy of a child to not respect their parents who have fulfilled their duty by taking care of them, but there is no moral requirement that a child do so.