Logic_Intential_Writing_SUBMITME
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kean University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
4204
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by MatePorcupine4041
Nathalie Fernanda Cuevas
PHIL 1105-AI, Ethics, Seton Hall University
Professor Heinrik Hellwig
September 20, 2023
Intentional Writing #1
QUESTION:
Is Dixon’s argument convincing in portraying parent-child relationships as friendships in
Section III, within the framework of the friendship model?
DESCRIPTION:
Dixon’s article, “The Friendship Model of Filial Obligations,” attempts to “develop a more
defensible version of English’s view” on parent-child relationships. This view determines that grown
children are not obligated to help their parents (p. 288). As a result, a grown child’s duties to his or her
parents are connected to the depth of their friendship. Therefore, Dixon’s model concludes that the same
societal expectations and roles in friendships can be applied to parent-child relationships and their filial
obligations. However, this friendship model demonstrates differences between parent-child relationships
and typical friendships. In section III, Dixon cites Joseph Kupfer, who describes these differences being
the lack and inequality of autonomy between parents and children creating codependency. Dixon’s key
premise from Kupfer’s claim is that dependency between parents and children creates a “legitimate
friendship,” which is different from peer friendships (p.291). Consequently, according to Dixon, we must
conclude that parent-child relationships can be interpreted as a different type of friendship under his
model.
Based on the structure of Dixon’s argument in section III, I do not think his argument is
convincing. In section III, he points out a major criticism of the friendship model, which is that it points
out the differences between parent-child relationships and friendships. Throughout this section, he debates
“whether these differences invalidate the friendship model, or whether parent-child relationships can be a
special type of friendship” (p.291). As a result, he cites Joseph Kupfer’s claim stating that parent-child
relationships and friendships are different because of their lack and inequality of autonomy, which creates
child-parent codependency. This claim abolishes Dixon’s goal in the article, which is to establish the
friendship model to understand and view friendships. However, he provides a weak counterpoint to
Kupfer’s argument, which in essence communicates that the lack of autonomy in parent-child
relationships can occur as “mutual identification,” which occurs amongst close peers (p.291). Therefore,
both close friendships and parent-child relationships experience a lack of autonomy reflected in similar,
but not exact ways. This statement seems like a failed attempt on Dixon’s behalf to prove his argument
because he is contradicting himself and his developing model, which is deemed as unclear and evasive.
Perhaps, Dixon can answer my criticism by stating that my perception of parent-child relationships is
closed-minded because he claims, in this section, that there can be different types of friendships.
Specifically, naming parent-child relationships as “legitimate friendships” that can be seen as a
relationship between “a wheelchair-bound person and the able-bodied person who looks after her”
(p.219). However, this claim is false to me because the friendship model was based upon relationships
amongst peers to compare parent-child relationships. Therefore, adding different types of friendships as
“legitimate friendships,” invalidates Dixon’s pursuit of portraying parent-child relationships as typical
friendships.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help