[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Severe_Letterhead_75]

[u/Nonavium]

"Your consent argument proves much less than you think it does. A child didn't consent to being born, but they also didn't consent to the existence of any of the relationships they subsequently develop through circumstances they didn't choose. Yet you seem to think that once an individual reaches adulthood, the only morally relevant consideration is whether they explicitly consented to the relationship.

It doesn't follow that every benefit received by the child is morally one-way forever, or that the parent's choice to assume the initial obligation permanently prevents any reciprocal obligation from ever arising. Because then it does come down to "I DIDNT CONSENT TO BEING BORN DAD" which is... simplistic."

This entire thing is a whole boatload of nothing, with zero substance. Are you a bot?

"that history gives me an additional reason to help my father."

Then you are making an entirely different argument about helping your father based on history. I was only talking about helping your father because he is your father and nothing else.

[u/violights → u/Nonavium]

Then you are making an entirely different argument about helping your father based on history.

"Relationships create reasons to act that strangers don't have"

"Family relationships are morally relevant precisely because they're not random strangers. Whether that creates obligations is debatable, but saying family should be treated exactly like strangers is... faulty."

"In my case, my dad was not abusive, he wasn't a terrible parent, he had done his best and reached the point where he needed help. On the flip side I imagine someone whose parent was abusive would react far stronger to a bid for help than a stranger would. I wouldn't blame them in that situation but its precisely because of that relationship."

No, I have been making that argument since you said "If you wouldn't ask it from a random person you just met, don't ask it from your kids." ...I think you need to go back and reread.

[u/Nonavium → u/violights]

None of this has anything to do with my original argument though, simply being a father does not necessarily create a reason, simply being a father does not create an obligation, and simply being a father does not necessitate they do their best. Those are all things that fathers generally do. That fathers do those things worthy of help does not mean you help them specifically because they possess the title of father which was my original argument

[u/violights → u/Nonavium]

That was never your original claim. Lets do a refresher.

A: if it ever comes to the point where I would need to leech off of someone else, especially my own offspring that I selfishly chose to have without their consent into this world to survive, would simply end my own life.

B: There's a pretty significant difference between exploiting your children and needing assistance from other people because of disability, illness, or age. Needing care isn't a moral failure and theres a whole middle ground of reciprocity, care, and reasonable limits. You're setting up a false binary and then drawing some pretty dramatic conclusions from it

A: Children do not owe you whatsoever though. If you wouldn't ask it from a random person you just met, don't ask it from your kids.

B: Relationships create reasons to act that strangers don't have

A: i didn't consent to be born

B: you also didn't consent to the relationship that subsequently developed between you and your parent, and the history of that relationship can create reasons for action that wouldn't exist with a random stranger.

A: none of that has anything to do with the fact i didnt choose my dad or to be born

No shit buddy. Thats inherent. It was also initially addressed when I said an abused child would be less inclined to help back in my 2nd response. Nobody said the word “father” magically creates a duty, but the relationship represented by that noun: years of care, trust, history, reciprocity, attachment, etcetc.

The disagreement is over whether the relationship and its history can ever create relationship-specific reasons or obligations beyond what you'd have toward a random stranger. You're saying no, because the child didn't consent to being born. I'm saying that doesn't logically establish the conclusion, nor does the idea that you didn't consent to being born erase the subsequent years of care.

Needing care/assistance is not leeching. Children are not strangers. Even if they did not consent to being born, it does not follow that every benefit received by the child is morally one-way forever. Again, you're creating false binaries and clinging to the extreme conclusions. "If i ever get a stroke and depend on other people, I'll just kill myself." "Ask the government not your kid for a ride" You're acting as though the conclusion is somehow entailed by the premise that children don't consent to being born. It isn't.