Abstract

This paper responds to recent arguments for the outsourcing of parental obligations and shows why such proposals are morally problematic. After outlining why it is impermissible for the parent–child attachment to be outsourced, and prior to section 1, I explain the meaning of the duty of love. In section 1 I note the primary motivating intuitions that lead parents to shift their moral obligations. I then discuss the intuition that the decision to shift an obligation of this sort cannot be criticized on moral grounds if children are, in fact, better and more content with their lives. In section 2, I claim that the duty of love is conditioned by vulnerability and attention, both of which give rise to moral obligations of attachment. In section 3, I argue that such duties cannot be shifted onto more capable adults because doing so would undermine the parent–child relationship and render it significantly less valuable. In section 4, I discuss the permissibility of outsourcing certain duties relating to the child’s welfare in order to maximize the child’s wellbeing and argue that the responsibility to maximize the child’s wellbeing is only outsourceable in terms of extrinsic goods. In section 5, I remark on a related duty to promise to foster an intimate, affectionate attachment with one’s child.