So we both agree that it's not that simple.
Do you think it's "decent" for children to look after their parents even if they were bad parents? What are you claiming, if anything? You never said that all children should help out, but do you think that some should?
It doesn't matter if it's due to religious beliefs, embarrassment or any other reason. It's still a choice the parents make, even if it's a bad one.
The difference between my exceptions and yours is that mine address your claim and prove it false- that not all parents are good. Examples of parents using poor judgment doesn't make your case any stronger. If parents make bad decisions why does that mean children should look after them when they're older? I still don't see why children should look after their parents even if they were the greatest parents in the world.
I was a Student of Objectivism for 2 years. Objectivism has some great stuff to offer. It's the most coherent philosophy I've yet to encounter.
However, I disagree that morality is objective. Reality is objective. A is A. But while I applaud the pursuit of rational self-interest, it's flawed when put forward as a universal rule because the basis for Objectivist morality relies on the acceptance of happiness as the chosen goal for one's life.
People can choose a different goal. And happiness isn't the same for everyone.
Therefore, it cannot be objective.
You assume that parents are always "there for [the child's] whole life". That's not always true and not to the same degree. Your idea of a good parent could be vastly different from mine.
I think you misunderstood why choice is important in the case of responsibility. Parents might not be able to choose what their children are like, but they can choose whether or not to have children at all (or raise children). That is where the claim to responsibility lies.
Other than your feelings that parents shouldn't be abandoned in a time of need, what reason should a child look after their parents if they don't want to? Some elderly people have no children at all, so wouldn't you be more concerned with them? What about children who are abandoned by their parents in a time of need? That would be infinitely worse, wouldn't you agree?
I never said anything like that. Did you miss the many times where I said that if a child has good parents, they might choose to take care of them. Not out of obligation, but because they want to?
I never mentioned my personal feelings about my own parents. That's irrelevant to this debate.
You shouldn't have children. Because they might be like me (whatever that means to you, seeing as how you don't know me at all), and as you said, you would hate that. Children aren't obedient slaves to love and take care of you unconditionally.
You do not simply believe people should pay. If that were the case, you would not advocate taxation. At least be honest about what you're supporting. Taxes aren't voluntary, by definition. It's not a "pressure to act the right way" because "the right way" is subjective.
It's so sad that it's normal for people to respond in this way. With coercion. There's this belief that unless we force people to act better, they won't.
The government is made up of people. People like anyone else. They're not special. And the only way the government can "help" is if the majority of people want them to (assuming we're talking about a democracy). Therefore logically, if most people already want others to eat healthier then they do not need to resort to force! And if most people don't want to eat healthier, it would go against the majority if the government tried to force them to. So do you see why that wouldn't work?
Do you understand where I'm coming from at all? As a society I think we are too quick to use violence as an answer. But it's not. Between obesity rates and freedom from coercion, which is the more important issue?
You're free to disagree with me. I would never advocate forcing you to pay for something you do not agree with. I would never advocate violence against you for disagreeing with me. I would hope you wouldn't advocate using violence against me for disagreeing with you.
If there are exceptions you cannot make it a universal rule. I don't think I'm missing the point, because the fact is that there are some bad parents out there. I thought this debate was about whether or not children should look after their elderly parents. If this debate is about whether or not some children should look after their elderly parents if they were really good parents (which is subjective), I would still disagree.
All parents do have a choice in having a child. Even if they accidentally get pregnant, they can choose to give up their child for adoption to parents who want them. They do make the choice to have and raise children, unless someone is holding a gun to their head.
I don't want to have children. However if I did, I would want to be the best parent possible because children can't choose who their parents are. If I had kids I would want to have a great relationship with them, so I would try my hardest to be a loving and positive influence in their lives. If they chose not to see me when I was old, I would not resent them for it. I would not expect them to take care of me just because I gave birth to them. I would wonder what it was I did wrong, that they didn't want to see me.
You're assuming that all parents do those things. What about parents who adopt? What about when one parent leaves? What about abusive/neglectful parents?
*reality check
Having and raising children is still a choice on the part of the parent(s), not the child. So even if parents are really great there's no reason why their child would be obligated to do anything for them. Of course, I think really good parents would have children that want to take care of them if/when they need to, but not because it's their duty as their child.
Some good points have already been brought up, but I'll just add my thoughts as well.
Whatever you're feeling is okay. You can't force yourself to care about someone even if you think you should. Nobody chooses who their parents are, but when you're an adult you can decide for yourself how you should be treated.
I'm sorry that your parents argued and caused you pain. Some people are lucky and have great parents, but unfortunately not everyone can be so lucky. It's completely up to you what you want to do. Just remember that your own feelings and opinions are what count, not what anyone else thinks. It was your childhood and it's your life, so it's your decision.
I don't live in the U.S., I live in Canada.
Your arguments have some serious flaws in them. Basically, you're saying that taxation is "voluntary" because you could choose not to work or buy anything and just live off of welfare (which is paid for by taxes)? Do you think that's a good argument? Somebody has to pay for welfare, and if you stop working, you're leaving someone else with the bill. Under no circumstances do I have to give up my ambition or move to another country to say that taxes are theft! I didn't choose to be born here and never agreed to the laws. Taxation is theft, no matter what I do personally. Why don't you just be honest? You think stealing people's money is fine as long as it's used for things you want.
Your insults and faulty logic only prove that you don't need to use reason. As long as you have the gun, people have to listen to you. I wouldn't advocate forcing you to pay for something I wanted, so why do you feel you have that right?
No contest. Harry Potter is the better person, would win in a fight to the death, and would be welcome for dinner at my home anytime!
Why? Well, although Jesus was God and his own son sent down to sacrifice himself for humanity even though he created them... it's just all very needlessly complicated. Harry Potter was much more noble. Sure, he wasn't all-knowing and all-powerful (which isn't possible anyways) but he made the world a better place. Which is more than can be said for Jesus.
Oh, I just realized I was assuming you meant Jesus Christ. Did you mean Jesus from True Blood? Because in that case this might be a hard question after all!
It's completely irrelevant what a thief does with the money- donates it to charity, feeds starving children, buys his ailing mother a present- it does not matter. All taxation is theft or else it would be voluntary. That is the issue we are debating: Is (high) taxation theft?
No matter what your opinions are on what people should spend their money on, even if you think it would make society better, when you advocate taxation you lose your right to talk about what people should do. You're advocating violence, and once you do that it's no longer a debate. Taxation is taking someone's money without their consent.
The argument for the "social contract" is absurd. I did not choose to be born, or where, and neither did you. I suppose a debate on taxation wouldn't be complete however, without someone inevitably saying "Well, if you don't like it you can leave!"
No, you're right. A fetus doesn't choose to live. I didn't think of that! :-)
Continuing to live is a choice though. Unless someone is forcing you to live or if you don't have a choice. In the case of suicide, choice is implied. Without choice a person can't commit suicide, right? What came to mind for me is that if you stopped moving, eating, breathing then eventually you would die. So in that sense, life is a continuous choice.
I don't think "right" is the correct term. Humans can commit suicide. Whether they should or shouldn't depends on who you ask, but ultimately it's up to the person who's life is in question. For the same reason it's absurd to tell someone they don't have a right to live, it's equally absurd to say they don't also have a right to end their life. What is life without the freedom of choice? Life is a choice.
Parents decide to have children, not the other way around. Since children don't get to choose their parents I don't see why they should look after them. Perhaps they would want to and they can certainly make that choice, but there's no reason why they "should".
"Young," "old," "conservative," and "liberal" can mean different things to different people. This is clearly just a generalization with nothing meaningful to be gained. Age has no bearing on the worthiness/unworthiness of holding political ideas, and not having a heart or brain is also a completely subjective judgement.
Taxation is central to this debate, because that's the question we are debating: Should we or should we not tax fatty foods? I think it's perfectly reasonable to examine what taxation is first, before trying to determine if it's justifiable in a specific situation. You seem to be under the impression that taxation is the only way to alleviate suffering. I fail to see how it's completely inhumane and incorrect to suggest that people pay their own bills or else seek peaceful solutions if they cannot. My main argument, which I believe to be entirely relevant, is that there are alternatives to taxation.
There are charities in existence for helping the poor. If people would rather keep their money, do you think they should be able to? Once you start advocating the payment of medical bills by force, without the consent of the person's money you are taking, that has to be addressed. Wanting to help the poor is an honourable goal indeed, but you have to think about what you're actually supporting. Do the ends justify the means?
If taxation is not theft, are you are free to not be taxed? What happens if you resist?
Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god/gods. If you lack belief in unicorns, you do not need to prove that unicorns don't exist. I think you're misunderstanding the burden of proof: Theists are the ones making a claim that something exists, therefore they should support that claim. Atheists are saying that god does not exist or that there is no reason to believe a god/gods exist. If you are not making a positive claim about reality you do not need to provide evidence.
Why should someone believe a god exists just because there could be a slight possibility that we can't comprehend which allows a god to exist? If so, then you might as well believe in all gods, unicorns and anything else that people can imagine.
It is a narrow perspective on your part to try and justify everything so it suits your position. Either a god exists or not. The universe includes everything that exists, and to exist requires being part of the universe in a physical sense. If you want to invent a realm in which god can exist, by all means go ahead. Just realize that in your paragraph you used the word "maybe" 3 times, but you never said that maybe god doesn't exist.
Taxation is theft. Theft is not justifiable in order to get people to eat healthier. If you think that eating fatty foods is bad, don't eat fatty foods yourself. Educate people and find peaceful ways to encourage better eating.
Why does it personally harm you if others eat fatty foods? In current society taxpayers are funding the high medical bills which is unfair (I live in Canada). It would be better for people to suffer the consequences of eating poorly by having to pay their own medical bills. Adding more taxes would only add to the injustice. There are better, more peaceful ways to solve these kinds of problems in society.
I think it's possible. We have made progress in that direction. Violence is seen as more of a last resort now. Also, the idea that people should be free to make their own choices (as long as they're not hurting anyone else) is more acceptable. There are a lot of people in the world, but it is possible that each individual could "get along" which does NOT mean that they have to agree with everyone else. It just means we could all coexist peacefully.
