SUMMERISE KELLERS SPECIAL GOODS THEORY OF FIFIAL DUTY AND THE MAIN ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF IT. CHOOSE ONE OF THESE ARGUMENTS AND CHALLENGE IT

Filial duty can be divided into three separate theories which rely on distinct concepts of duty: the debt account, the gratitude account and the friendship account. In Keller’s view none of the three existing accounts are able to explain why exactly children have certain duties in relation to their parents/vice versa. This is due to the fact that each of these three theories is based on the integration of the “moral relationship between parent and child to some independently understood concept of duty”. This concept becomes more understandable through the observation that this special kind of relationship differs from other relationships in how it is structured and what it contains; To argue the accounts of filial duty Keller introduces a fourth account, the ‘special goods theory’, which recognizes the uniqueness of the parent-child relationship and thus can appropriately asses its duty relations.

Due to the specific bond which is the parental-filial bond, the moral relationship found in such cases cannot be understood by comparison to other kinds of relationships. Keller’s alternative theory of special goods is rooted in two presuppositions: (1) Filial duty should be thought of as distinct from other duties in its terms and (2) different forms of duty can be related to different kinds of goods and consequently understood within the mutual exchange of certain goods. Within a healthy and reciprocal parent-child relationship certain benefits are seen to arise for both parties. These “improvements to the lives of individuals” involve on the one hand the exchange of important goods throughout the entire length of the relationship and on the other hand a noticeable increase of the value and quality of the child’s as well as the parent’s life.

A thesis that supports the special goods theory is that there is a general and widespread ‘strong desire’ to have children amongst the human species. Unlike other kinds of desire this is neither a pure desire founded in the compulsion to help the needy, nor a solely egoistic desire to secure the future support of the grown child, or the desire to fulfil moral or political duties. For Keller it is rather a desire “about the shape of your own life” with the self-oriented end to increase the value of the parent’s life in combination with the self-less end to create a good life for the child. Parenting can enhance the lives of the parents and creates a new life and many a couple invests significant amounts of resources such as “money, time and emotional energy” in order to experience these goods. Since it adds so much to people’s lives these expenses are perfectly reasonable and when somebody who wants to have children lacks the ability to do so, others will be quite prone to deep empathy. This is due to the fact that the life of a person unable to become a parent is forever missing a special kind of experience which cannot be fully substituted by any other kind of experience. The goods of parenting then are of unique nature as they cannot be easily obtained from other sources. A person who has succeeded in all spheres of life and has access to and abundance of material resources will nevertheless feel the lack of the special goods only obtainable in a parent-child relationship. Conversely there are certain goods exclusive to having a good relationship with one’s mother and father. If one has never met or fully known one’s parents, the parental bond is severed or the parents have passed away a similar feeling of emptiness or missing something essential in life is evoked. Children of this kind too will indulge in great efforts to experience exclusive parental goods, for example, adopted children who choose to find their biological parents.

While the special goods theory is a good foundation to explain a certain standard parent-child relationships, it contains many ideas that can be challenged. Keller’s whole argument relies on an ideal picture of the parents and of the ‘healthy’ relationship between them and their children. He instantly dismisses people who do not experience or value these special goods as “not the sort of person who should have children”. As the socially accepted level of autonomy of the children varies, so do the expected filial duties, which in many cases aren’t met by the parents. In Shakespeare’s drama “ Romeo and Juliet” Juliet falls deeply in love with Romeo and the duty to Romeo stands in direct conflict with her filial duties towards her parents causing the tragic death of both lovers. Such settings of children being compelled to complete obedience to their parents are found in many cultures across the world still today and can be argued to produce ‘special damage’ to the children’s lives rather than ‘special goods’. Another example of the sorrow and grief parent-child relationships can create is the case of grave illness of death of a parent or a child. Furthermore in many eastern cultures filial duty is understood in completely different terms than the one’s offered by Keller. Buddhists men in India for instance often leave their families behind to become monks in order to detach themselves from the circle of suffering samsara and reach enlightenment.While the teachings of Confucius ask: “Filial piety and fraternal submission,-are they not the root of all benevolent actions?” , not everyone in todays society would answer with a clear ‘yes!’ as many value their own being more than the full obedience to their family. The duty to provide special goods reciprocally in a parent-child relationship certainly isn’t justifiable on the mere notion that they can exclusively provide each other with such goods. The duties children have towards their parents may in certain cases arise naturally from a mutual, respectful and caring relationship; alas they are often part of a social construct which limits the children’s opportunities and subdues them to the parent’s will in an unequal and unfair manner creating filial duty which clearly doesn’t “make lives go better” .

Bibliography
Confucius, Analects, available at: http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/analects.1.1.html (24.04.2014)

Keller S., ‘Four Theories Of Filial Duty’, The Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 223, (April 2006)

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. S. Keller, Four Theories Of Filial Duty, p. 254
[ 2 ]. S. Keller, Four Theories Of Filial Duty, p. 265
[ 3 ]. S. Keller, Four Theories Of Filial Duty, p. 265
[ 4 ]. S. Keller, Four Theories Of Filial Duty, p. 265
[ 5 ]. S. Keller, Four Theories Of Filial Duty, p. 267
[ 6 ]. Confucius, The Analects, Part I
[ 7 ]. S. Keller, Four Theories Of Filial Duty, p. 274