Adult children’s particular obligations to their parents are filial obligations. The gratitude of filial obligations that treats one’s filial obligations as duties of gratitude to one’s parents is a mainstream view. However, in terms of the requirements of such obligations, the gratitude account fails to provide practical guidance. The general requirement seems that children should benefit their parents as the beneficiary should benefit the benefactor. The question is what kinds of benefits adult children should provide to their parents? In some (...) cases, adult children feel obligated to provide particular benefits to their parents like paying their medical bills or spending time with them. While in some other cases, it seems that they can use their own discretion to decide how to satisfy the filial obligations so long as what they do benefits their parents. In this article, I am trying to argue that although the general requirement of the filial obligations is to benefit the parents, there are two kinds of benefits that adult children are strongly obligated to provide. These are special goods that parents can only get from their children and things that meet their parents’ basic needs. In addition, although adult children have filial obligations to benefit their parents, there should be some limitations on the requirements of filial obligation. Namely, adult children do not have a filial obligation to meet their parents’ desires that could only be satisfied at the cost of adult children’s liberty related to significant aspects of their lives, or to meet their parents’ desires that could only be satisfied at the cost of infringing their capacity to fulfil other important duties. (shrink)

In this article I investigate the nature and extent of filial obligations. The question what (adult) children owe their parents is not only philosophically interesting, but also of increasing relevance in ageing societies. Its answer matters to elderly people and their adult children, and is relevant to social policy issues in various ways. I present the strongest arguments for and against three models of filial obligations: the ‘past parental sacrifices’ model, the ‘special relationship’ model, and the conventionalist model. There is (...) something to be said—and after consideration of objections something remains to be said—for all three models. In other words: filial obligations have more than one source, and an adequate model of filial obligations should reflect this. On its own, each of the above models is one-sided. They also fail to show the connections between the question of filial obligations and various other issues, such as issues of gender justice, the extent of institutionalization of eldercare, and social conventions regarding filial responsibility. Therefore, I integrate what I think we should keep from the aforementioned models into a contextual, pluralist model, which places filial obligations in a broader social and cultural context and relates them to issues of social justice. The model also highlights the difference between general and specific filial obligations, and the factors that determine their nature and extent, thus enabling a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of filial obligations. (shrink)