Parents vs Society: Who Is Morally Responsible For Feeding Your Children?

In most modern societies, parents are responsible for raising their own children, but the state would provide assistance if the parents are struggling financially. This raises moral questions. First, is it moral to hold others responsible for helping you raise your children? Is it moral to allow children to starve if they do not have parents who can provide? Who is morally responsible for the well-being of children?

 

At the heart of this moral question is the conflict between negative and positive rights. A negative right is the right not to have something done to you. For example, you have the right to not have your property unjustly confiscated from you. A positive right is the right to have something done for you. For example, you have the right to receive financial assistance to help you raise your children.

 

According to Wikipedia, a right is defined as a moral or legal principle of freedom or entitlement. Freedom embodies the concept of a negative right – the right not to have something done to you. Entitlement embodies the concept of a positive right – the right to compel somebody to do something for you. Entitlements must necessarily violate somebody's freedom because they will be subject to punishment if they do not give you your entitlement. Freedoms must necessarily violate somebody's entitlements because they cannot claim their entitlement without violating your freedom. Therefore, the very definition of a 'right' contains a logical contradiction that invalidates the entire concept. So let's not talk about rights. Let's talk about morality.

 

There is much debate as to what is or what is not moral. However, there is universal agreement on one essential characteristic of morality – moral rules are universal. The rules must be applied consistently to everybody. Thus, if you permit yourself to do something unto others, you must permit others to do it unto you. If you allow yourself to do unto others, but not the other way around, then the rule you live by treats you differently than other people. This is a violation universality, which is not allowed in morality.

 

Given that moral rules must be universal, positive rights or entitlements cannot be moral. If you propose a rule that requires somebody else to give you money, but you do not have to give him anything in return, that is a violation of universality. He has to do something for you or he faces punishment. You don't have to do anything for him, and you face no punishment. The rule treats you one way while simultaneously treating him in a completely different way. This is immoral.

 

Since we've established that entitlements are immoral, does that mean that parents are not morally obligated to feed their own children? Does this mean that parents may not face punishment if they let their children starve to death?

 

According to Murray Rothbard, parents have no moral obligation to do anything for their children precisely because 'positive rights' or 'entitlements' are invalid moral concepts.

 

I disagree with his conclusion. Parents DO have a moral obligation to feed their children, and I do not need to invoke the concept of 'positive rights.' Neglectful parents are guilty not because they refuse to feed their children. They are guilty because they produce children knowing that their children will have a high probability of starving. Thus, the guilty act isn't neglect. It is the harm they inflict by bringing their child into this world only to have their child starve to death. It is analogous to kidnapping somebody, crippling him so that he is unable to take care of himself, and then leaving him to starve. The guilty act is the kidnapping, not that you don't feed the guy. Anybody who brings a child into this world is morally responsible for whatever befalls their child if they do not do everything in their power to make sure their child survives into adulthood. (And yes, parents are exempt if a situation befalls them that is completely out of their control. Having children under existing conditions of poverty does not count as an exemption because you know what will happen to your children under these conditions.)

 

We've established that parents have a moral obligation to their own children, but do parents have a moral obligation to other people's children? The answer is no. If you did not bring that child into this world, then you are not the one who inflicted pain and suffering on that child. You are not morally responsible for that child. If that child starves to death, it is the parents who are responsible.

 

In conclusion, don't have a child if you have no intention of feeding it or if you know you won't be able to feed it. If your child starves, you alone are morally responsible and nobody else. If anyone should be punished for this, it should be you. If your child starves to death due to intentional neglect, then the punishment for you should be death by starvation. What you do unto others, others may do unto you. You may think this a harsh moral code, but it is only as harsh as your own actions permit - no more, no less.