Philosophy of family?

[Baba Yaga]

I'm sort of bored at the moment, and when I get bored I tend mull over meaningless philosophical questions. One topic of inquiry I wanted to see your opinion on is whether there should be a proper philosophy of family. The word family is a pretty loaded term that has a cornucopia of connotations, so sometimes it can be difficult to pin point a useful definition to work with. After all, individual families can take on my many different faces. Your family could be a traditional nuclear family, with a mom, dad, and biological offspring. It could be two dads or two moms with adopted or surrogate offspring. It could be a polyamorous family. It could be just a group of really close friends that have known eachother for years. On the surface, this seems to make the entire concept of family meaningless or vaccuous. No matter where you go though, the word elicits really strong emotions, especially here in America where it's often abused by right wing politicians to advance a particular agenda.

Despite these difficulties, there does seem to be some key elements that set family apart from mere friends. You may have heard phrases like "Blood is thicker than water" or one of my favorites from the movie Lilo and Stitch "Ohana means family, and family means nobody gets left behind." Through a sort of cultural osmosis, I've come to understand that the word family comes with an expectation that the members involved will be there for one another, if possible, no matter what the circumstances. If you screw your brother over for a lot of money, he isn't likely to completely forsake you. Screw your friend over for a lot of money, and in most cases you won't have that friend anymore.This appears like a romantic and beautiful idea, and I would say that most of the time it is, but we start to run into problems when we stretch this to its logical extremes. What if your family is really disrespectful or cruel to you? Sons and daughters are usually expected to take care of their parents when they're sickly or running on borrowed time, but most of us wouldn't expect such a thing if your parents repeatedly beat or molested you. In this sense, the question becomes one in which you ask what's a reasonable amount of suffering to endure for the sake of someone you consider family?

What I'm trying to figure out is where familial obligations should begin and end. Should parents have an obligation to their children up until the point that they are of legal age, until it's determined that they have the proper amount of self discipline and responsibility, or until the rest of their days if the children in question genuinely need the help and the parent(s) find themselves in an adequate position to give it? What should be the roles of father, mother, brother, sister, etc? What types of family units are most effective in raising psychologically healthy, competent human beings? Village based families, where everyone looks out for one another? Polyamorous families?

I understand that the scope of this line of inquiry is extremely broad, which may present its own problems, but I believe the discussion is important. Previous philosophers like Confucius also thought and wrote about what they believed family is and should be, but I think they thought about it very poorly. Confucius strayed into dangerous territory with ancestor worship and Aristotle and Plato both wrote about how the mothers natural place was in the home, and that male domination of women was both virtuous and natural. Family is a useful concept, and as an institution it's probably going to be with us forever. We need coherent and useful ways of thinking about it.

To summarize the main questions.

1) What does family mean to you? Are there connotations that you think are present in most cultures? If so, I want to hear about them.

2) Where do familial obligations to one another begin and end?

3) What do you think separates of a familial bond from a simple friendship?

4) What is a reasonable amount of suffering that family members should endure from one another?

 

[Aegiscalibur]

Family doesn't mean anything in particular to me. I don't recognize any intrinsic moral value in a familial bond. The relatives I like as people are my friends, those I don't... are not.

However, people's free decisions can give them obligations, so if you choose to have a child, you should prima facie look after him. The exact duration of this is determined on a case-by-case basis according to the child's needs and available resources.

More people looking after a child is usually more efficient. There is no need for any specific family roles beyond having a reasonably sized team of main caretakers so that it doesn't get too chaotic.

 

[Baba Yaga]

My friend Austin takes a more draconian stance. When I asked him whether a father that kicks his son out of the house once he reaches legal age is behaving morally, under the rationale that he's fullfilled his obligations under the social contract, he said that the father is only as bad as the society that makes him stuck with his kid for 18 years.

It's not so much intrinsic moral value that I'm looking for. I think that most of us, or at least of a lot of us, view family in a virtuous light because society probably couldn't function without them. You're expected to have responsibility toward your children because the world would look like a pretty horrible place if people indiscriminately had as many children as they wanted and simply expected society to pick up the tab. I view familial obligation as a moral good in that sense. It also functions as a social safety net.

If we agree that family units are essential in the functioning of large societies if only due to their inevitability, then the question should be what's the ideal way the family should be set up in order to best suit the needs of the specific society they are in. I agree that more care takers is usually better, but I'm not sure I agree that designated family roles aren't necessary or useful. I imagine it makes things easier and lessens conflict if everyone knows what their functions and responsibilities to eachother are.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

It's not so much intrinsic moral value that I'm looking for. I think that most of us, or at least of a lot of us, view family in a virtuous light because society probably couldn't function without them. You're expected to have responsibility toward your children because the world would look like a pretty horrible place if people indiscriminately had as many children as they wanted and simply expected society to pick up the tab. I view familial obligation as a moral good in that sense. It also functions as a social safety net.

If we agree that family units are essential in the functioning of large societies if only due to their inevitability, then the question should be what's the ideal way the family should be set up in order to best suit the needs of the specific society they are in.

If you aren't looking for intrinsic moral value, then what? Instrumental value? Almost anything can have that. Sure, your actions are limited by other people's beliefs, but that doesn't imply that their beliefs are valuable, necessary or inevitable.

We can talk about tactics on how to influence other people in a specific situation, but that's just tactics, not proof of universally optimal solutions. It's like a politician lying to achieve a noble goal because the voters are stupid, and I can't blame him for that, but it would be better if the voters simply weren't stupid and could understand better argumentation.

By the way, why would people want to indiscriminately have a lot of children anyway? Where is the profit in that? Quite frankly, I'd be more worried about extinction.

the question should be what's the ideal way the family should be set up in order to best suit the needs of the specific society they are in.

Why would there have to be a single family model for a whole society?

I agree that more care takers is usually better, but I'm not sure I agree that designated family roles aren't necessary or useful. I imagine it makes things easier and lessens conflict if everyone knows what their functions and responsibilities to eachother are.

Of course they can designate roles, but that is on a case-by-case basis depending on their individual circumstances. I meant that there don't have to be universal roles for mothers, fathers, siblings, etc.

 

[Baba Yaga]

If you aren't looking for intrinsic moral value, then what? Instrumental value? Almost anything can have that. Sure, your actions are limited by other people's beliefs, but that doesn't imply that their beliefs are valuable, necessary or inevitable.

We can talk about tactics on how to influence other people in a specific situation, but that's just tactics, not proof of universally optimal solutions. It's like a politician lying to achieve a noble goal because the voters are stupid, and I can't blame him for that, but it would be better if the voters simply weren't stupid and could understand better argumentation.

By the way, why would people want to indiscriminately have a lot of children anyway? Where is the profit in that? Quite frankly, I'd be more worried about extinction.

Why would there have to be a single family model for a whole society?

Of course they can designate roles, but that is on a case-by-case basis depending on their individual circumstances. I meant that there don't have to be universal roles for mothers, fathers, siblings, etc.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't a such thing as intrinsic or objective moral values. Chasing after a universally applicable ethic seems like a waste of time considering everyone that has tried has failed. A system of morality can be objective in relation to a persons specifically held values, but the values held will always be subjective. I'm open to the possibility of an objective morality, but haven't seen anything convincing. In light of that, I consider myself a moral pragmatist. Most of us don't want to die, and the only way to balance my interests against everyone else's is through a system of morality that values peace, cooperation, justice, etc. I'd rather discuss why family is a moral good in relation to these commonly held virtues than argue why family is good for its own sake.

I agree there don't have to be universal roles for anybody, but you could say the same thing about systems of government, right? There could be a society that, taking into account special circumstances, dictatorship would be preferable over democracy. We still think of democracy as being the ideal, though, and a goal to eventually progress toward. I am thinking of family in the same way. There don't have to be roles for specific members, but is there an ideal set up?

 

[Aegiscalibur]

As far as I'm aware, there isn't a such thing as intrinsic or objective moral values. Chasing after a universally applicable ethic seems like a waste of time considering everyone that has tried has failed. A system of morality can be objective in relation to a persons specifically held values, but the values held will always be subjective. I'm open to the possibility of an objective morality, but haven't seen anything convincing. In light of that, I consider myself a moral pragmatist.

Intrinsic and objective aren't the same thing. Subjective values can be intrinsic and objective values can be instrumental. Goals are intrinsic; the means to achieve them are instrumental. But something can be instrumental in relation to the big picture and at the same time intrinsic in relation to the smaller subsystem. That is how I was using the words now, at least. Pragmatism always exists in relation to goals because it's just about being efficient at achieving them.

Most of us don't want to die, and the only way to balance my interests against everyone else's is through a system of morality that values peace, cooperation, justice, etc. I'd rather discuss why family is a moral good in relation to these commonly held virtues than argue why family is good for its own sake.

Technically I don't think an optimal family is an end-goal either. It was only intrinsic in relation to the choice of family model. My argument doesn't hinge on the choice of values very much; the main requirement is that they are independent of the family model itself. But I had in mind values like individual liberties and concrete welfare (health etc.)

I agree there don't have to be universal roles for anybody, but you could say the same thing about systems of government, right? There could be a society that, taking into account special circumstances, dictatorship would be preferable over democracy. We still think of democracy as being the ideal, though, and a goal to eventually progress toward. I am thinking of family in the same way. There don't have to be roles for specific members, but is there an ideal set up?

I think I already used this argument against democracy in a thread here somewhere. It isn't even hard to list recent examples of failed democracies.

So anyway, sure we can talk about which system of family is usually best for people with some particular mindset. It's just going to be pretty contingent. It may seem now that a traditional family is best, but that's in part because people have been taught to feel awkward about some of the alternatives.

 

[Grei]

1) What does family mean to you? Are there connotations that you think are present in most cultures? If so, I want to hear about them.

2) Where do familial obligations to one another begin and end?

3) What do you think separates of a familial bond from a simple friendship?

4) What is a reasonable amount of suffering that family members should endure from one another?

1. I feel like the pervading connotation would be that family is blood. "People who are close enough to consider each other family" have always been the exception, not the rule. Some cultures expand this definition to consider all members of their community family, but these are likewise exceptions to the majority. For me personally, my family is my blood relatives. Particularly my immediate, nuclear family, but also my aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. Specifically, people whom I trust and that have been there as long as I can remember. I have a certain level of security with them that I don't share with really anybody else. There's something indescribable about the connection to someone who is genetically alike to you.

2. This line is subjective imo. I think familial obligations can never be considered to "end." My brother will always be my brother; we will never not be brothers. We have an obligation to look out for one another and help one another when it is necessary. That being said, another familial obligation, imo, is to do your best to not be needed. My brothers and parents have their own set of issues to grapple with, just as I do. I'm not fulfilling my obligations to them if I'm not trying my best to solve my own independent issues. Now that we're all legal adults, I can expect my brother to help me when I need it, but I can expect him to expect me to try my best to be self-sufficient enough to not be "in need."

3. Genetics. Honestly, so much of a single individual's personality is derived from their genetics that even personality differences between myself and my brothers can be traced to similar genetic personality traits (particularly why we react the way we do to things). I don't share that with any of my friends.
That being said, I feel familial closeness with some people who are not related to me. I have some friends that I feel I can trust wholly and whom I know are looking out for my best interest, as I do theirs. I can feel totally comfortable with these people. At that depth of closeness, there really isn't much difference between being blood related or not, beyond the genetic familiarity, which will simply never be there.

4. I ended up touching on this a bit in 2. I don't particularly think it's right to "give up" on family members, so I think any amount of suffering that is necessary is the amount that should be endured. Granted, I have the benefit of a very good family life; I'm sure there are circumstances of outright verbal or physical abuse which call for "giving up" on someone. In cases like these, the sufferer's well-being is at stake and should be considered over the person causing the suffering... of course, this is assuming that the person causing the suffering isn't trying to help themselves. There are a lot of variables to consider.
I guess the reasonable amount of suffering, then, depends. However much the one suffering can endure without breaking under the stress. I would never abandon a family member in need, but I also have the foresight and knowledge of psychology to be able to see when a situation is going to improve or not before I can't handle it. I also wouldn't take the suffering laying down; I would try my best to actively combat the source of the suffering so that both of us can move on with our lives.
... again, assuming the suffering is something that can be alleviated. It really does depend on the situation. There's no easy answer.