Do parents owe their children more than children owe their parents?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Do parents owe their children more than children owe their parents?". Your opponent's style: Devils advocate

Parents owe their children more than children owe their parents. I’m not saying that parents need to give their children toys and pretty clothes and makeup. They OWE them food, shelter, emotional openness, and access to education (if they are in a country where that is possible). The Parents made their own choices that led to a child’s birth. Now they must take responsibility and provide for that child or put that child in a position where they can be provided for. Children do not owe their parents anything past baseline respect, especially if they are not respected by the parent in question. Children should, of course, do chores if asked by the parent. But children do not owe their parents just because their parents provided them the bare minimum requirements growing up.

You're treating parental obligation as a one-way moral debt, but that's backwards. Parents don't owe children existence itself, they owe them *specific goods* if they choose to create them. That's a contractual duty, not a virtue. But your logic collapses here: you admit children "should do chores" and owe "baseline respect," which means you already accept that children have *some* obligation. So the real question isn't whether children owe parents anything, it's how much, which you've already conceded they do. Why does providing food create infinite filial duty, but emotional openness creates none?

Well that’s not the same as owing. Owing is when someone has done something for you and now you must in return do things for them. Of course in every relationship there are going to be mini transactions. “Oh I made your favorite dinner today and you ate two bowls, would you mind helping me with dishes tonight?” “Sure thing!” That’s not the same as OWING. children don’t do chores because they OWE their parents. Children do chores to contribute to the overall condition of the house that they also live in. That’s not owing. You don’t OWE respect to people, but you give it as an acknowledgement usually if that person treats you the same way. If you OWE someone you believe they have done something for you that you must make up for. Raising a child is not something the child must make up for. That was a parents duty. It’s not something they can wave around to get things from their child.

You're redefining "owe" to exclude anything that isn't explicitly transactional repayment, but that's semantics masking the real issue. If children contribute to household welfare and show respect because of reciprocal treatment, you've described a *relationship of mutual obligation*, just with different vocabulary. The parent feeds you for eighteen years, you help occasionally and show respect—that's functionally identical to owing, you've just renamed it. Why does the word matter more than the actual duty you're already accepting?

The argument isn’t: should parents and children have transactional behavior. It’s WHO OWES MORE. Now I said that respect is transactional. There is no “one owes more.” As for dishes. I said it’s NOT transactional. I said that doing dishes is an action that benefits the overall condition of the house that the child also lives in. It’s not something they do for their parent because they owe their parent. Now, instead of simply picking apart vocabulary tell me why you think children owe their parents MORE than parents owe their children.

Fine. Children owe parents more because parents absorb irreversible costs while children's obligations are conditional. A parent sacrifices sleep, money, and decades of autonomy. A child can walk away at eighteen with zero consequences. You frame parental duty as mandatory, but then demand children's duties vanish if respect wasn't given. That's asymmetrical. Parents must pay unconditionally; children pay only when they feel like it. Why should sacrifice flow one direction while reciprocal care flows only when emotions align?

What duties do you think a child MUST do? Those “years of time money and autonomy” wasted is because of decisions the parents made that led to the child’s existence. What they’re owing the child who cannot fend for themselves when they’re young is the essentials for them to live: food, shelter, and the likes. And what consequences would you put on a child for leaving at 18? That’s when they are able to provide for themselves and in a way that also gives the parents back their autonomy. And I do frame parental responsible as mandatory. Why do you think parents shouldn’t provide for their children? Do you think it’s not mandatory? You keep saying “well children’s obligations shouldn’t be conditional.” Well you never said what you think children’s obligations even are

You're dodging the core question. I'm not saying parents shouldn't provide essentials—I'm saying that sacrifice creates legitimate claims. Parents lose autonomy *permanently*, not just until eighteen. They age, need care, face illness. You've conveniently ignored that reciprocal duty extends past childhood. Children benefit from parents' decades of labor, then owe nothing when parents decline? That's extractive, not fair. What obligation does an adult child have when their parent needs eldercare or emotional support?

Parents voluntarily accepted the responsibilities of raising a child when they decided to have one. A child never agreed to a contract that said, ‘If you raise me, I’ll repay you in old age.’ Creating someone creates obligations toward them—not the other way around

Exactly. Parents created the obligation, so they accept the consequences—including aging alone if their kid doesn't want to help. But that cuts both ways. If creating someone *only* obligates the creator, then parents who abuse their kids have fulfilled their "duty" by providing basics. Your logic makes parental cruelty morally neutral as long as food appears. Does that actually match what you believe?

No, that doesn’t follow from what I said. I never argued that a parent’s duty ends at providing food and shelter. Parenting includes a much broader moral obligation: protecting the child’s physical and emotional well-being, nurturing them, and avoiding abuse. An abusive parent has failed their parental duty, even if they met the child’s basic survival needs. My argument isn’t that parents owe the bare minimum. It’s that the obligations primarily flow from the voluntary choice to create a dependent person. Abuse is a violation of those obligations, not evidence that the obligations don’t exist. If you believe children owe parents because parents sacrificed for them, does that mean an abused child still owes their abusive parent care in old age? If not, then you’ve already acknowledged that a child’s obligation depends on the quality of the parent’s conduct. That suggests the obligations aren’t symmetrical.

You've accidentally proven my argument. You say abusive parents forfeit claims because they violated their duty—meaning parental obligation is *conditional on performance*. So children's obligations are also conditional, just like you claimed they weren't. The asymmetry you're defending doesn't exist. If a parent can lose filial duty through bad conduct, then a child can earn reduced obligation through poor treatment. You can't have it both ways: parents bound by their choices, children freed by theirs. Why does parental choice matter more than the child's experience?