Duty to Parents

There seems to be an indolent propensity in man to make prescription always take place of reason, and to place every duty on an arbitrary foundation. The rights of kings are deduced in a direct line from the King of kings; and that of parents from our first parent.

People seem naturally inclined to let custom take the place of reason and to base every duty on arbitrary rules. The rights of kings are traced directly to the King of kings, and the rights of parents to our first parent.

Why do we thus go back for principles that should always rest on the same base, and have the same weight to-day that they had a thousand years ago—and not a jot more? If parents discharge their duty they have a strong hold and sacred claim on the gratitude of their children; but few parents are willing to receive the respectful affection of their offspring on such terms. They demand blind obedience, because they do not merit a reasonable service: and to render these demands of weakness and ignorance more binding, a mysterious sanctity is spread round the most arbitrary principle; for what other name can be given to the blind duty of obeying vicious or weak beings, merely because they obeyed a powerful instinct? The simple definition of the reciprocal duty, which naturally subsists between parent and child, may be given in a few words: The parent who pays proper attention to helpless infancy has a right to require the same attention when the feebleness of age comes upon him. But to subjugate a rational being to the mere will of another, after he is of age to answer to society for his own conduct, is a most cruel and undue stretch of power; and perhaps as injurious to morality, as those religious systems which do not allow right and wrong to have any existence, but in the Divine will.

Why do we look to the past for principles that should always rest on the same foundation? They should carry the same weight today as they did a thousand years ago, and not a bit more. If parents do their duty, they have a strong and sacred claim to their children’s gratitude. But few parents are willing to accept their children’s respectful affection on those terms. They demand blind obedience because they do not deserve to be served reasonably. To make these demands of weakness and ignorance more binding, they surround the most arbitrary principle with an air of mysterious holiness. What else can we call the duty to obey vicious or weak people blindly, merely because they acted on a powerful instinct? The mutual duty that naturally exists between parent and child can be defined simply. A parent who gives proper care to a helpless infant has a right to expect the same care in old age. But once a rational person is old enough to answer to society for their own conduct, forcing them to submit to another’s mere will is a cruel and unjust exercise of power. It is perhaps as harmful to morality as religious systems that allow right and wrong to exist only through the divine will.

I never knew a parent who had paid more than common attention to his children, disregarded (Dr. Johnson makes the same observation.); on the contrary, the early habit of relying almost implicitly on the opinion of a respected parent is not easily shaken, even when matured reason convinces the child that his father is not the wisest man in the world. This weakness, for a weakness it is, though the epithet AMIABLE may be tacked to it, a reasonable man must steel himself against; for the absurd duty, too often inculcated, of obeying a parent only on account of his being a parent, shackles the mind, and prepares it for a slavish submission to any power but reason.

I have never known a parent who gave his children more attention than most to be disregarded by them. (Dr. Johnson makes the same observation.) On the contrary, a child soon learns to rely almost unquestioningly on the opinion of a respected parent. This habit is not easily shaken, even when mature reason convinces the child that his father is not the wisest man in the world. A reasonable man must resist this weakness, for it is a weakness, though it may be called AMIABLE. The absurd duty of obeying a parent merely because he is a parent is taught too often. This duty shackles the mind and prepares it to submit slavishly to any power except reason.

I distinguish between the natural and accidental duty due to parents.

I distinguish between the duties we owe our parents by nature and those that depend on circumstances.

The parent who sedulously endeavours to form the heart and enlarge the understanding of his child, has given that dignity to the discharge of a duty, common to the whole animal world, that only reason can give. This is the parental affection of humanity, and leaves instinctive natural affection far behind. Such a parent acquires all the rights of the most sacred friendship, and his advice, even when his child is advanced in life, demands serious consideration.

A parent who works hard to shape a child's character and develop their understanding gives dignity to a duty shared by all animals. Only reason can give that duty such dignity. This is human parental affection, and it goes far beyond instinctive natural affection. Such a parent gains all the rights of the most sacred friendship. Even when the child is grown, the parent's advice deserves serious consideration.

With respect to marriage, though after one and twenty a parent seems to have no right to withhold his consent on any account; yet twenty years of solicitude call for a return, and the son ought, at least, to promise not to marry for two or three years, should the object of his choice not entirely meet with the approbation of his first friend.

When it comes to marriage, a parent seems to have no right to withhold consent for any reason once a son is over twenty-one. Yet twenty years of parental care deserve something in return. If his first friend does not entirely approve of his choice, the son should at least promise to wait two or three years before marrying.

But, respect for parents is, generally speaking, a much more debasing principle; it is only a selfish respect for property. The father who is blindly obeyed, is obeyed from sheer weakness, or from motives that degrade the human character.

But respect for parents is generally a much more degrading principle. It is only a selfish respect for property. A father who is obeyed blindly is obeyed out of sheer weakness or motives that degrade human character.

A great proportion of the misery that wanders, in hideous forms around the world, is allowed to rise from the negligence of parents; and still these are the people who are most tenacious of what they term a natural right, though it be subversive of the birth right of man, the right of acting according to the direction of his own reason.

Much of the misery that takes hideous forms around the world is allowed to arise from parents’ neglect. Yet these same parents cling most fiercely to what they call a natural right. They do so even though it undermines the birthright of every person: the right to act according to their own reason.

I have already very frequently had occasion to observe, that vicious or indolent people are always eager to profit by enforcing arbitrary privileges; and generally in the same proportion as they neglect the discharge of the duties which alone render the privileges reasonable. This is at the bottom, a dictate of common sense, or the instinct of self-defence, peculiar to ignorant weakness; resembling that instinct, which makes a fish muddy the water it swims in to elude its enemy, instead of boldly facing it in the clear stream.

I have often observed that immoral or lazy people are always eager to profit by enforcing arbitrary privileges. Generally, the more they neglect the duties that alone make those privileges reasonable, the more eager they are. At bottom, this is a kind of common sense, or an instinct for self-defense peculiar to ignorant weakness. It resembles the instinct that makes a fish muddy the water it swims in to escape its enemy, rather than boldly face it in the clear stream.

From the clear stream of argument, indeed, the supporters of prescription, of every denomination, fly: and taking refuge in the darkness, which, in the language of sublime poetry, has been supposed to surround the throne of Omnipotence, they dare to demand that implicit respect which is only due to His unsearchable ways. But, let me not be thought presumptuous, the darkness which hides our God from us, only respects speculative truths— it never obscures moral ones, they shine clearly, for God is light, and never, by the constitution of our nature, requires the discharge of a duty, the reasonableness of which does not beam on us when we open our eyes.

Indeed, defenders of established customs of every kind flee from clear reasoning. Instead, they take refuge in darkness. Sublime poetry has imagined such darkness surrounding the throne of Omnipotence. From this refuge, they dare to demand the unquestioning respect due only to God's mysterious ways. But let me not be thought presumptuous. The darkness that hides our God from us concerns only speculative truths. It never obscures moral truths. They shine clearly, for God is light. And because of the nature he has given us, God never requires us to perform a duty whose reasonableness we cannot see when we open our eyes.

The indolent parent of high rank may, it is true, extort a show of respect from his child, and females on the continent are particularly subject to the views of their families, who never think of consulting their inclination, or providing for the comfort of the poor victims of their pride. The consequence is notorious; these dutiful daughters become adulteresses, and neglect the education of their children, from whom they, in their turn, exact the same kind of obedience.

It is true that a lazy, high-ranking parent may force his child to show him respect. Women on the continent are particularly subject to their families’ wishes. Their families never think of asking what these poor victims of their pride want or providing for their comfort. The result is well known: these dutiful daughters commit adultery and neglect their children’s education. In turn, they demand the same kind of obedience from their children.

Females, it is true, in all countries, are too much under the dominion of their parents; and few parents think of addressing their children in the following manner, though it is in this reasonable way that Heaven seems to command the whole human race. It is your interest to obey me till you can judge for yourself; and the Almighty Father of all has implanted an affection in me to serve as a guard to you whilst your reason is unfolding; but when your mind arrives at maturity, you must only obey me, or rather respect my opinions, so far as they coincide with the light that is breaking in on your own mind.

It is true that women in all countries are too much under their parents’ control. Few parents think of speaking to their children in the following way. Yet Heaven seems to command the whole human race in just this reasonable way: It is in your interest to obey me until you can judge for yourself. The Almighty Father of all has given me affection to protect you while your reason develops. But when your mind matures, you must obey me, or rather respect my opinions, only when they agree with the understanding dawning in your own mind.

A slavish bondage to parents cramps every faculty of the mind; and Mr. Locke very judiciously observes, that "if the mind be curbed and humbled too much in children; if their spirits be abased and broken much by too strict an hand over them; they lose all their vigour and industry." This strict hand may, in some degree, account for the weakness of women; for girls, from various causes, are more kept down by their parents, in every sense of the word, than boys. The duty expected from them is, like all the duties arbitrarily imposed on women, more from a sense of propriety, more out of respect for decorum, than reason; and thus taught slavishly to submit to their parents, they are prepared for the slavery of marriage. I may be told that a number of women are not slaves in the marriage state. True, but they then become tyrants; for it is not rational freedom, but a lawless kind of power, resembling the authority exercised by the favourites of absolute monarchs, which they obtain by debasing means. I do not, likewise, dream of insinuating that either boys or girls are always slaves, I only insist, that when they are obliged to submit to authority blindly, their faculties are weakened, and their tempers rendered imperious or abject. I also lament, that parents, indolently availing themselves of a supposed privilege, damp the first faint glimmering of reason rendering at the same time the duty, which they are so anxious to enforce, an empty name; because they will not let it rest on the only basis on which a duty can rest securely: for, unless it be founded on knowledge, it cannot gain sufficient strength to resist the squalls of passion, or the silent sapping of self-love. But it is not the parents who have given the surest proof of their affection for their children, (or, to speak more properly, who by fulfilling their duty, have allowed a natural parental affection to take root in their hearts, the child of exercised sympathy and reason, and not the over-weening offspring of selfish pride,) who most vehemently insist on their children submitting to their will, merely because it is their will. On the contrary, the parent who sets a good example, patiently lets that example work; and it seldom fails to produce its natural effect—filial respect.

Slavish obedience to parents stifles every power of the mind. Mr. Locke wisely observes: "If children’s minds are restrained and humbled too much, if overly strict control lowers and breaks their spirits, they lose all their energy and diligence." Such strict control may partly explain women’s weakness. For various reasons, parents hold girls down more than boys, in every sense of the word. The duty expected of girls, like all duties arbitrarily imposed on women, comes more from a sense of propriety and respect for decorum than from reason. Taught to submit slavishly to their parents, girls are thus prepared for the slavery of marriage. I may be told that many women are not slaves in marriage. True, but they then become tyrants. For the power they gain through degrading means is not rational freedom, but a lawless kind of power. It resembles the authority exercised by the favourites of absolute monarchs. Nor do I mean to suggest that boys or girls are always slaves. I insist only that when children are forced to submit blindly to authority, their abilities are weakened. Their dispositions become domineering or servile. I also regret that parents lazily take advantage of a supposed privilege and dampen the first faint glimmer of reason. At the same time, they make the duty they are so eager to enforce an empty name. They will not allow it to rest on the only secure foundation for any duty. Unless duty is founded on knowledge, it cannot become strong enough to resist sudden storms of passion or the quiet erosion of self-love. But the parents who most fiercely demand that their children obey their will, merely because it is their will, are not those who have given the surest proof of their affection. More properly, the most affectionate parents have fulfilled their duty and allowed natural parental affection to take root in their hearts. Such affection is the child of sympathy and reason put into practice, not the conceited offspring of selfish pride. By contrast, a parent who sets a good example patiently lets that example do its work. It seldom fails to produce its natural effect: a child’s respect for a parent.

Children cannot be taught too early to submit to reason, the true definition of that necessity, which Rousseau insisted on, without defining it; for to submit to reason, is to submit to the nature of things, and to that God who formed them so, to promote our real interest.

Children cannot be taught too early to follow reason. This is the true meaning of the necessity that Rousseau insisted on but never defined. For following reason means accepting the nature of things and submitting to the God who shaped them to promote our real interests.

Why should the minds of children be warped as they just begin to expand, only to favour the indolence of parents, who insist on a privilege without being willing to pay the price fixed by nature? I have before had occasion to observe, that a right always includes a duty, and I think it may, likewise fairly be inferred, that they forfeit the right, who do not fulfil the duty.

Why should children’s minds be distorted just as they begin to develop, simply to spare parents the effort? These parents insist on a privilege without being willing to pay the price nature demands. I have observed before that every right comes with a duty. I think we may also reasonably conclude that those who fail to fulfill the duty forfeit the right.

It is easier, I grant, to command than reason; but it does not follow from hence, that children cannot comprehend the reason why they are made to do certain things habitually; for, from a steady adherence to a few simple principles of conduct flows that salutary power, which a judicious parent gradually gains over a child's mind. And this power becomes strong indeed, if tempered by an even display of affection brought home to the child's heart. For, I believe, as a general rule, it must be allowed, that the affection which we inspire always resembles that we cultivate; so that natural affections, which have been supposed almost distinct from reason, may be found more nearly connected with judgment than is commonly allowed. Nay, as another proof of the necessity of cultivating the female understanding, it is but just to observe, that the affections seem to have a kind of animal capriciousness when they merely reside in the heart.

I admit that it is easier to give orders than to reason. But that does not mean children cannot understand why they are made to do certain things regularly. By consistently following a few simple principles of conduct, a wise parent gradually gains a healthy influence over a child’s mind. This influence becomes truly strong if it is tempered by a steady display of affection that reaches the child’s heart. I believe that, as a general rule, we must admit that the affection we inspire always resembles the affection we nurture. So natural affections, which have been thought almost separate from reason, may be more closely connected to judgment than people generally admit. Indeed, there is further proof of the need to develop women’s understanding. It is only fair to observe that affections seem to have an animal-like tendency to change on a whim when they reside only in the heart.

It is the irregular exercise of parental authority that first injures the mind, and to these irregularities girls are more subject than boys. The will of those who never allow their will to be disputed, unless they happen to be in a good humour, when they relax proportionally, is almost always unreasonable. To elude this arbitrary authority, girls very early learn the lessons which they afterwards practise on their husbands; for I have frequently seen a little sharp-faced miss rule a whole family, excepting that now and then mamma's anger will burst out of some accidental cloud— either her hair was ill-dressed,* or she had lost more money at cards, the night before, than she was willing to own to her husband; or some such moral cause of anger.

The inconsistent use of parental authority is what first harms the mind. Girls are more subject to these inconsistencies than boys. Some parents never allow their wishes to be questioned, unless they happen to be in a good mood. Then they become just as lenient. Their wishes are almost always unreasonable. To get around this arbitrary authority, girls learn lessons very early that they later put into practice on their husbands. I have often seen a sharp-faced little girl rule an entire family. Now and then, though, her mother’s anger would burst out, provoked by some chance irritation. Perhaps her hair had been badly styled,* or she had lost more money at cards the night before than she wanted to admit to her husband. Or there was some other such moral cause for anger.

(*Footnote. I myself heard a little girl once say to a servant, "My mamma has been scolding me finely this morning, because her hair was not dressed to please her." Though this remark was pert, it was just. And what respect could a girl acquire for such a parent, without doing violence to reason?)

(*Footnote. I once heard a little girl say to a servant, "My mother scolded me terribly this morning because her hair was not styled to her liking." Though the remark was cheeky, it was fair. How could a girl respect such a parent without going against reason?)

After observing sallies of this kind, I have been led into a melancholy train of reflection respecting females, concluding that when their first affection must lead them astray, or make their duties clash till they rest on mere whims and customs, little can be expected from them as they advance in life. How, indeed, can an instructor remedy this evil? for to teach them virtue on any solid principle is to teach them to despise their parents. Children cannot, ought not to be taught to make allowance for the faults of their parents, because every such allowance weakens the force of reason in their minds, and makes them still more indulgent to their own. It is one of the most sublime virtues of maturity that leads us to be severe with respect to ourselves, and forbearing to others; but children should only be taught the simple virtues, for if they begin too early to make allowance for human passions and manners, they wear off the fine edge of the criterion by which they should regulate their own, and become unjust in the same proportion as they grow indulgent.

After observing outbursts of this kind, I have fallen into sad reflection about women. I have concluded that their earliest affections are bound to lead them astray or bring their duties into conflict. When this happens, their duties come to rest on mere whims and customs. So little can be expected of them as they grow older. How, indeed, can a teacher remedy this evil? To teach girls virtue based on any sound principle is to teach them to despise their parents. Children cannot and should not be taught to make allowances for their parents’ faults. Every such allowance weakens the force of reason in their minds and makes them still more tolerant of their own faults. One of the highest virtues of maturity leads us to be strict with ourselves and patient with others. But children should be taught only the simple virtues. If they begin too early to make allowances for human passions and behavior, they dull the standard by which they should guide their own conduct. And as they become more tolerant, they become unjust to the same degree.

The affections of children, and weak people, are always selfish; they love others, because others love them, and not on account of their virtues. Yet, till esteem and love are blended together in the first affection, and reason made the foundation of the first duty, morality will stumble at the threshold. But, till society is very differently constituted, parents, I fear, will still insist on being obeyed, because they will be obeyed, and constantly endeavour to settle that power on a Divine right, which will not bear the investigation of reason.

The affections of children and weak people are always selfish. They love others because others love them, not because of their virtues. Yet morality will stumble at the threshold until esteem and love are combined in our first affection. Reason must also become the foundation of our first duty. But until society is organized very differently, I fear parents will still insist on obedience simply because they demand it. They will keep trying to base their authority on a divine right, though it cannot withstand the scrutiny of reason.