Family issues in the context of ethics Seminar of Ethics, Prof. PhD.

Candidate Stephen Hudson Katholiek Universiteit KU Leuven Octo er !"th of !#$! % &ose 'a(corro. )* Philosoph% Student +* rid,e Pro,ram......................................................................... ......................................................................... Resume /his paper is part of the Ethics Seminar on )* philosoph% pro,ram. 0t is made on the discussion of 1hat could e a proper definition of the concept of famil% in the conte2t of the contemporar% issues on ,a% marria,e, vitro insemination and state intervention. 0 tr% to make an overvie1 of the different perspectives as 1ell on the li ertarian and communist vie1s. Concludin, 1ith an a stract definition of 1hat should e considered as a famil% in a personal approach3 and in contrast to other people4s definition 1hat could e the course of action % addressin, these definition or an% other one that could e more ,enerall% accepted. .........................................................................

/here a different 1a%s to define famil% and in its conceptual constraints and properties. Several of these vie1s are covered in this course % authors such as /amara 'ets, *le2andra Kollontai, )renda *lmond, 'ichael Kinse%, &ennifer 5o ack and others. *ll of them constrained on the e,innin, of the centur% 66 and the e,innin, of 660 centur%. *s 1ell as the% different routes and opinions 0 tried to make a holistic vie1 on the issue to rin, a perspective to these road concept of 78amil%9. *nd % achievin, this ,oal 0 can sa% that 0 have developed a particular vie1 on these issue that even particular it still emanate from a universal approach. :et to e compared to others opinion, m% approach tries to e as complete as possi le, ar,uin, that still ein, the famil% a concept of human relationship and human social values, it is also a concept of human ein, as one 1ho em odies a dual value on the retrospective ein, determinate or

$ of "

vie1 of himself as an interdependent individual. )% this 0 mean a person intrinsic vie1 as part of a communit% or societ%. /herefore there m% approach must not e taken on an% particular posture in the a solute sense ut in the particular vie1 as a personal reco,nition % an% individual to define the concept of famil% in their o1n means. 0n this 1a% m% posture ma% e seen li ertarian is for all one of personal opinion that in each societ% 1ill form a different vie1 % means of a,,re,ation and correlation of ideas et1een the mem ers of each particular societ%. )% sa%in, these 0 1ould then ar,ue that the concept of famil% could een seen in t1o

perspective one from the individual soul that em odies his;her values and commitments, and another perspective from the societ% point of vie1 that em odies the common interest as 1ell as the individual ones. 0n this conte2t 0 should descri e the different point of vie1 a,ainst 1hich 0 e on favor as 0 can e a,ainst. So that m% point of vie1 is merel% the e2pression on m% uni<ue ein,. 0n these position 0 share opinion 1ith the first of these author *le2andra Kollontai $"!# 1hich ar,ues that= 7/here is no point in not facin, up to the truth= the old famil% in 1hich the man 1as ever%thin, and the 1oman nothin, >?@ is chan,in, efore our ver% e%es. )ut there is no need for alarm it is onl% our i,norance that leads us to thin, that the thin, 1e are used to can never chan,e. Aothin, could e less true than the sa%in, 7as it 1as, so it shall e9.9 /here is trul% nothin, that throu,h time does not chan,e 1ith the different 1inds or influences. *nd that is also re,ardin, to the concept of famil%. )ut if there is a feelin, so endure that constraint our definition of famil% is this precise concept of famil% elon,in,. Be are as stron, as our famil% route. Even )renda *lmond !##C sa%s on her intervie1 1ith Ai,el Bar urton= 7a Chinese prover 1hich 0 found <uite strikin,= Dto for,et one4s ancestors is to e a rook 1ithout a source, a tree 1ithout a root4 9.

! of "

/here to sa% that the iolo,ical ond et1een the parents and his offsprin, is a natural one that ma% endure for all our life. Such as *ristotle thou,h that the human ein, flourishes est in a iolo,ical unit. )renda *lmond !##C. )ut even 1ith the stron, ond et1een ones child or ones iolo,ical parents, there are distinctions that 1e ma% do. 0 even <uote one % usin, these term 7 iolo,ical parents9. )ecause in the conte2t of the modern technolo,% % that 0 mean vitro fertilisation and sperm anks, 1here there are possi ilities for people that %et not een ph%sicall% a le to procreate the% do ,et children % means of ne1 medical procedures. Or even in the case of adoption. Be ma% distin,uish et1een those our parents that raise us, and those our iolo,ical parents or from 1ho 1e received our ,enes. *nd %et the concept of a famil% not Eust applied to the so call nuclear families ut also to sin,le 1omen, or ,a% couples. &ennifer 5o ack !##C refers to statistics that said that the num er of children ein, orn to unmarried mothers +in these case sin,le mothers or 1omen that raise children completel% on their o1n as &ennifer sa%s- has increased from CF in $"G# to H!F in !##H in the UK. *nd IGF in the US, and amon, G#F of *frican *mericans +presuma l% from the same %ears-. E2tendin, even more the concept of famil% some authors ma% ar,ue that families do not onl% impl% procreation and child arise, ut also individual union and attachment. Some people like 'ichael Kinsle% !##I, 1ill ar,ue in the case of ,a%s couples 1ho 1ant to ,et marr% that is etter to end the institution of marria,e than to tr% to fit these cases on the le,islation. Even if that means to privati(e marria,e and to solve issues like childhood su sides and divorce arran,ements % addin, re,ulations to social le,islation. 0ndividual attachment is surel% one definition of famil% even if their intentions of procreation are not successful. )ut should the state ack up these t%pes of traditional families rather than the more 7modern ones9 or the less conventionalJ *uthors have a road disa,ree on these <uestions. )ecause the polic% of the state as to een seen as the one that seeks common interest is on the ethical discussion that does not have a clear ,eneral or pu lic opinion in these aspects. Bhile some minorities stru,,le for their ri,hts to ,et marr% others more conventional does not 1ant to aloud chan,e and the issue ,ets even more complicated 1hen the state itself provides financial help or ta2es I of "

e2ceptions for families 1ith children or sin,le mothers. 'ichael Kinsle% +!##I- implies= does ,a% marria,es should ,et the same treatment of the state as traditional onesJ, 1hile 5o ack +!##C- ar,ue and those traditional sta le families must pa% for the more unsta le onesJ. :et the disa,reement could not e seen as a pro lem ut as an opportunit% to find

commitment and to stren,then the ties in societ%. )ut 1hich kind of societ%J One that ar,ues for the intervention of the state or one that ar,ues for a more li ertarian vie1J. *nd if the intervention is necessar% for the survival of some minorities or disadvanta,es ,roupsJ. :et the communist vie1 has a ver% particular 1a% of seein, thin,s, in their o1n some considerer archaic 1a% of thinkin,. /he% consider to appl% 1hat could not een so archaic seen, ut rather more plausi le= the same idea as Plato4s famil% State. One that ar,ues that constrains et1een parents and children does not have to e a mandator% o li,ation ut an optional. Bhen the parents 1here more interested on their o1n lives or 1here tired +especiall% 1omen- of their home duties. /he state in e2chan,e of their 1ork as state 1orkers 1ill suppl% childhood care, open kitchens for the comrades or mem ers of the state and other facilities. 0n the manifesto of Communist Part% % Karl 'ark and 8rederick En,els $"HC, translate % Kodiac and )rain )a,,ins, the communist supporters stated= e not so cra(% in the conte2t that for the 7* olition of the famil%L. Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists9. Of course these idea could Communist the famil% ma% e represented % this 'ar2 idea of our,eois famil% 1here the 1ife4s 1ere treated as a mere instrument of human reproduction. )ut even in this conte2t and e2actl% as the <uote refers, even the most radical of the Communists 1ill insist this to e an insane thou,ht. )ut, it is no secret that these sort of famil% or,ani(ations 1here actuall% in part adopted in practice. *le2andra Kollontai $"!# even 1rites= 7the state does not need the famil%, ecause the domestic econom% is no lon,er profita le= the famil% distracts the 1orker from more useful and productive la or9.

H of "

Even at the point of diminish this rather state control in contemporar% societ%3 there are still some issues that involve the support of the state. Bh% for e2ample )renda *lmond !##M ar,ue= 7Continuin, increases in life e2pectanc%, 1hen com ined 1ith declinin, fertilit%, ,enerate ne1 social pro lems. 0n some European countries, 1ithin a fe1 decades oneNthird of the population 1ill e a,ed MO or over, a situation that is ound to affect ta2 rates, pensions, and healthcare arran,ements.9 /hese issues involved also the continuousl% need of 1orkin, a,e people 1ho can su tend the needs of the primar% and secondar% sectors of the econom%. Like manufacturin,, construction, maintenance, petrochemical and other industries. *s 1ell as farmin, and cultivation activities. /hese pro lems are in direct relation 1ith famil% issues, especiall% 1hen irth rate in Europe is accordin, to Bikipedia on avera,e $.M in !##C. *nd the e2pected avera,e a,e 1ill e OI for !#O#. *lmond !##M. /herefore intervention of the state has ein, roadl% considered in the European Union, especiall% in the case of 8rance 1here 1orkers pa% less ta2 1hen the% have children. )el,ium and 0tal% are also cases 1here these encoura,e policies for people to have children are applied. Other issues of state intervention could e considerer 1hen families ,et apart and involve in divorce disputes, in these cases usuall% children custod% and financial pro lems must een solve. )ut even in these aspects ho1 far must the state intervene on familial issues. *nd is there some kind of definition to the term of famil% that can distin,uish 1hich individuals should ,et support or reco,nition and 1hich notJ Even of some of these cases must of us has never een involve in these issues, and

e2animate them could e a task far a1a% of our overcast or e2perience. )ut ma% e other more common issues ma% e ,ive as direct contact on 1hat are 1e here talkin, a out. /here are some other 7simple9 cases like ri,hts and o li,ations on formal coha itation. *nd ar,ues on married couples and coha itants. 0s there a limit to the mem ers or a restriction on iolo,ical kinship 1here 1e should define the limits of our familiesJ

O of "

/hese aspects ma% e considered of pure analit%. )ut ma% e some of us are alread% identif% 1ith one or more of these issues. 0n either 1a% some le,al certaint% has to een made to ,ive us the kind of securit% proposed % a civili(ed societ%. :et civili(ed or,ani(ed life does not ,ive us a $##F certaint% in re,ular asis, there are 1a%s to ensure our so call correct ehavior on these issues. )ecause as previousl% state 1e are more than individual livin, a life sustained on our o1n means. Bhere fundamentall% interdependent individuals, that need from these e2ternal aspects to feed our o1n ein,. Surel% not onl% in a material 1a% ut also in a ps%cholo,ical 1a%. /he feelin, of kinship identification or the feelin, of support and commitment and the natural onds that emanates from each orn child and ne1 parent. /hese feelin,s are onds and to rela% on them. 0f for e the ones 1ho more correlated in the 1a% life <ualit% ensures them. )ecause out of the conte2t of our or,ani(ed civili(ation 1e should not e a le to 1arrant% these instance 1e 1here orn in the middle of an unsta le societ%, 1here asic needs are not to e sure. Our famil% and not the or,ani(ed pu lic services 1ill pro a l% 1ill rin,s us the asic needs of ever% human ein,. *nd if for instance 1e could not ,ro1 up in a societ% 1here education 1ill e a secure asset ut rather a privile,ed one. Our famil% 1ill e the onl% resource for a asic education. 0f 1e tr% to ensure a universal concept of famil% 1e should not constrain our vision to the status <uo of modern societ%. )ecause even in other times 1hen such a <ualit% of life 1as not 1arranted there 1as a special tie that inds us to our relatives. *nd that someone ensures us the possi ilit% to ecome a mature person. )ut these road vie1 of 1hat a famil% does not mean to een shared % all societ% at the same level. Even the most intelli,ent people could take for ,ranted conditions that are not to e appreciated a roadl% as 1e 1ant to conceived our road concept of famil%. David *rchard on his te2t /he 8amil%= * li eral Defense +!#$#- defined famil% in these terms= 7in the li,ht of this essential functional role the famil% can e minimall% defined as a multi,enerational ,roup, normall% sta l% coNha itin,, 1hose adults take primar% custodial responsi ilit% for the dependent children9. )ut as the author of these revision /amara 'et( +!#$$- ar,ues this definition does include the possi ilit% of a non children famil%, 1here the care is not amon, adults and children ut a out marital communion. M of "

/herefore 1e should not precipitate to define this manl%

road concept and not to

compromise our le,al assessments on these term. 5ather 1e should ask ourselves as 7interdependent individuals9 of this communal societ%. Do 1e a,ree on an% kind of definition, /hat allo1s us to determinate different pu lic approach to such an important institutionJ *nd in this case of a,reement 1hatever 1ill e our definition 1e ma% then approach a

commitment or response on an% kind of situation that ma% come or e2ist. *l1a%s from dual vie1 of interdependenc% 1here individuals %et to e considerer as sin,le units of a s%stem are instead to een considered as a fi2ed interdependent fi,ure to,ether 1ith societ%. Even for ,eneral propose 0 should set clear m% o1n definition of 1hat the concept of famil% should e, and sa% that it could surel% differs from others definition and 1hat reall% matters on social issues as these on state intervention and others considerations should e still e the ,eneral a,reement on an% ,iven situation or pro lem. So for me famil% is that 1hat 1e as livin, ein,s trul% considerate as the ,roup in 1hich 1e elon, 1ith other+s- livin, ein,+s-, 1hatever the% ma% e. Ao1 even 1ith these definition on the stake 0 must also add that 1e should al1a%s e trul% to ourselves and avoid false commitments to 1hat 1e don4t consider to e our famil%. Aot onl% to avoid harmin, societ% or others, statements. 0n these meanin, 0 trul% elieve that the definition of li ert% ,iven % the declaration of the 5i,hts of 'an and the Citi(en of the 8rench Aational *ssem l% of $GC" should e kept as a asis ar,ument to avoid an% misleadin, on seein, each other as apart individuals rather as 7interdependent ones9. 0t sa%s= 7*rt.H Li ert% consists in the po1er to do an%thin, that does not inEure others3 accordin,l%, the e2ercise of the ri,hts of each man has no limits e2cept those that secure the enEo%ment of these same ri,ht to the other mem ers of societ%9 /herefore to assure that 1e see each other as interdependent ein,s, livin, ein,s ut also to avoid harm ourselves % a false

ounden simple fact of us ein, alive. *nd to committed us 1ith ourselves ut also 1ith

G of "

other ein,s amon, us. /hese as ein, a trul% understandin, of 1hat fundaments are o1n e2istence and 1hat ound us all ein,s 1ith capacities and defects or duties and ri,hts.

References 7Declaration of the 5i,hts of 'an and the Citi(en9 +*u,ust $GC"7Communism and the 8amil%9, *le2andra Kollontai $"!#. 8irst Pu lished= in Komunistka, Ao. !, $"!#, and in En,lish in the Borker, $"!#3 Source= Selected Britin, of *le2andra Kollontai, *llison P )us %, $"GG3 translated % *li2 Holt. 7/he 8amil%= * li eral Defense9, David *rchard, Pu lished= &ul% $M, !#$$. David *rchard, /he 8amil%= * Li eral Defence, Pal,rave 'acmillan, !#$#, $I$pp., 0S)A "GC#!I#OC#O"M. 5evie1ed % /amara 'et(, 5eed Colle,e 70t /akes a 8amil% to 5aise a Qilla,e= /he Si,nificance of the 8amil% for the 8ree Societ%9. &ennifer 5o ack 'orse, PhD. Senior 5esearch 8ello1 in Economics at the *cton 0nstitute for the Stud% of 5eli,ion and Li ert%. &anuar% I#, !##C. 0ntercolle,iate Studies 0nstitute lecture series. /he culture of Enterprise. UCL* 7/he famil%9. *udio )%= Professor )renda *lmond +Ruest-, Dr David Edmonds, Ai,el Bar urton +/he Open Universit%- http=;;111.open.edu;openlearn;histor%NtheN arts;culture;philosoph%;theNfamil% +last visited Oct. !", !#$!-. 7* olish 'arria,e Let4s reall% ,et the ,overnment out of our edrooms9, 'ichael Kinsle%. Posted on &ul% !, !##I. 7'anifesto of the Communist Part%9 Karl 'ar2, and 8rederick En,els, 8irst Pu lished, 8e ruar% $CHC, Source= 'ar2 ; En,els Selected Borks, Qol. One, Pro,ress Pu lishers, 'osco1, $"M", pp. "CN$IG3 /ranslated= Samuel 'oore in cooperation 1ith 8rederich En,els, $CC. /ranscri ed= % Kodiac and )rian )a,,ins.

C of "

7/he 8ra,mentin, 8amil%9, )reda *lmond !##M, O2ford Universit% Press 7'arria,e and Procreation= *voidin, )ad *r,uments9. Patrick Lee, 5o ert P. Reor,e, and Rerard Q. )radle%, 'arch I#, !#$$. Demo,raphics of the European Union, http=;;en.1ikipedia.or,;1;inde2.phpJ titleSDemo,raphics.of.the.European.UnionPoldidSO$CC#HCCH +last visited Oct. !", !#$!-.

" of "