Yes they are. That is the function of children with respect to parents in the circle of life, just as it is the function of parents to care for children. Not all obligations are ones you voluntarily undertake.
Of course there are boundaries to the scope of that obligation. But those are defined by society, not "consent." The problem in Claire's story is that the parents are perfectly capable of working but choose to burden her instead.
- This enables abusive parenting styles and forces adult children to need to unlearn this lie in order to come to terms with their abuse;
- This enables parents having an outsized influence on adult children, such as controlling their sexuality, interests, physical location, etc;
Frankly: the parents have an obligation to care for their children because they generally chose to have children or chose to keep them once they were had. The child did not choose to be born and does not have a choice on the quality of their parentage. It's unacceptable to then place the burden on the child for choices they didn't make and have no control over.
“Choice” is not the be-all end-all of morality (or, really, even particularly important). The obligation for parents to care for their children and vice versa arises from the nature of people and the nature of the relationship. Parents have an obligation to care for children even when they didn’t choose to have children. Conversely, children have an obligation to care for parents even though they didn’t choose to be born.
People who didn't choose to have children are not called parents.
> Conversely, children have an obligation to care for parents even though they didn’t choose to be born.
You've offered nothing to support this supposed (but not really) symmetry. This seems like back-rationalization of some cultural norm or tradition (especially when coupled with your anti-individualism swipes in the other comment).
Perhaps your beliefs are not as preordained as you may believe.
People take care of their families because of a bond that has nothing to do with blood. That bond is uniquely about mutual feelings and as a parent we have only a few years to make that bond last a lifetime.
If it's formed on top of obligations and resentment it'll break the first chance it gets. Just take a look at one of the kids in the article: she probably had a great life materially, but the minute she turns 18 she's willing to never talk to her parents ever again.
To be clear, in this particular example the parents are breaching their side of the obligation by burdening their kid while they’re still healthy and able to work.
Parents are adults who can and should care for themselves. You aren't born into debt.
To expect both your parents, as well as your children, to be responsible to you at both ends of your life is selfish and entitled.
Just one example: in India people help one's families to a huge extent. But kids are also brought up under heavy use of corporal punishment and there's a high degree of family involvement in children's affairs, such as dictating career choices and marriage. Is that a healthier society?
If societal pressure is the only reason why people take care of their families, what's the point? So I don't find it individualistic if someone does not feel obliged to help, it's much more complex than that. There should be more between a parent and child than obligation and well-defined roles. I help my family because I love them, because they raised me to love them, not solely because they're my ancestors.
Yes. If an Indian village raises their kids the way Americans do everyone would die of starvation.
The idea that someone could hold such cultures up as an ideal is literally insane to me.
It seems to me that these systems stem from the basic concept that women and children are the personal inanimate property of their family unit, to be disposed of however the family wishes, like a used car or a plot of land. The idea that this is healthy or normal appears to be a rationalization and not rooted in any basis besides tradition.
It's more about having a narrower sense of the scope of the individual relative to the collective and the relevance of individual choice. Both facilitated marriages and parents' involvement in career choices arise from the quite sound premises that (1) young people are bad at making decisions and can benefit from the acquired and collective wisdom of the family; and (2) that people have a moral obligation to perpetuate society and support families, and fulfilling those obligations isn't about individual choice. (Note that both principles apply equally to men and women.)
No one forced my Mother to marry my Father. There was a period where they just talked and got to know each other. She could have said no. Nor did she have to compromise on her career. It was not a business transaction where my Father went to a supermarket to get one wife to cook and bear sons.
It looks like you've read about an Arranged marriage that went bad in a news article and seem to have decided that you know all that's there to it.