I agree completely with all of Nicholas Smith’s suggestions about parenting. I especially like his remarks about the importance of an "exit strategy." Our job as parents, after all, is to raise our children to be independent and responsible adults, but they can hardly acquire these skills if they are never able to make their own decisions and learn from their own, hopefully minor, mistakes. We do want our teenagers to feel comfortable coming to us for advice and insight, not worried that they will get harsh judgment or even punishment, because as Prof. Smith suggests, if they fear this response, they simply will not come to us at all. At the same time, though, the high rates of teenage pregnancy and of women and children living in poverty remind us of the decisions that many fourteen year old girls will make when given the opportunity. This fact might suggest to us that many fourteen year old girls are not yet ready to make wise decisions for themselves. In such circumstances, it is our...

When a human child is brought into existence, whose moral responsibility is it to see that this child’s very significant needs are met? In most human societies, this responsibility has been given to its parents. It was due to the parents’ actions that this child came into existence in the first place; and, further, parents tend to have stronger instincts than others to meet the very significant needs of their progeny. For these reasons, the allocation of primary responsibility to meet the needs of immature humans to their parents generally makes good moral sense. To what extent and under what conditions this responsibility should also be shared with others and to what extent and under what circumstances this responsibility may be relinquished to others are further complicated moral questions. You wonder whether it is fair that fathers who have had no say in whether a fetus is brought to term should be held morally responsible for meeting the needs of their progeny. This, it seems to me, is a...

Under Federal Law (COBRA), companies with 20 or more employees arerequired to offer health care coverage at the group rate to formerspouses of employees for three years after a divorce. In somestates, companies with fewer employees are required to do the same. So,while it would be less expensive for your former wife to have been covered as a spouseunder your family plan, it’s probably just a mistake to believe thatyour former wife will not have health insurance coverage unless shedelays the divorce. Butsuch an observation doesn’t really touch the deep and complex issuesthat your and your former wife’s arguments raise about the nature andvalue of marriage. Let’s imagine that there were no such federallaw guaranteeing a three-year continuation of health insurance coveragefor former spouses. If you stayed married for the sake of providingyour wife health insurance coverage, wouldn’t you be doing somethingdishonest? Wouldn’t you be pretending, for the purpose of defrauding ahealth insurance company,...

I agree with Richard that, to the extent that there is anything to thisidea, it is based on a particular view about the importance of thefamily to human civilization. Traditionally, the family is the social unit inwhich human children are raised, acquire values, and develop moralcharacter (i.e., are civilized). Proponents of the view that you aredescribing make the further assumption that the family is the best social institution for raising children. The idea here is that, inorder to be psychologically healthy, children need to feel confidentthat the adults in their lives will do their best to take care of themand won’t take off whenever they see greener pastures elsewhere. Thenorms of family relationships, unlike the norms that govern other sortsof social relationships, demand such care and count against such“trading up.” And finally, proponents of the view that you describe maintain that, associal institutions for raising children, families are more likely tobe stable and successful when they are...

I know that you’re primarily interested in the more sophisticatedquestion concerning the extent of our obligations to friends, but I’mstuck on childhood “snitching,” or as it’s known in my family,“tattling.” “Don’t be a tattle-tale,” I’m often tempted to tell my fiveyear old when she tells me of some minor indiscretion of her fourteenyear old sister. Why not? Didn’t her sister do something wrong? Andshouldn’t wrong-doers be held to account? And isn’t it my job as aparent to enforce all morally legitimate norms? No, it’s my jobas a parent to do what is in my power to protect my children fromunjustified harm and to help them to develop their capacities to livegood, worthwhile, and morally decent lives. If they are being wrongedby someone else and if they do not yet have the skills or authority toprevent that wrong, then I must intervene. But the usual situationsthat motivate tattling aren’t like that. Most tattling is motivated byenvy. Tattlers tend to regard moral norms as arbitrary...

I’ve long been a non-believer, but I remember that when my firstdaughter was born, I too began to worry about the sorts of questionsthat are raised here. It’s one thing for me to be a non-believer— can’treally help that, since the only thing that can give me a reason tobelieve in God would be evidence that suggests the existence of a God–but it’s a separate matter whether I should try to inculcate a beliefin God in my daughter. After all, I reasoned (in a panicky sort of way–overwhelmed by the sheer immensity of the responsibility that I hadjust taken on), I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before, and if othersare right in their belief that the existence of God is necessary foreternal bliss and non-belief in God is sufficient for eternaldamnation, then perhaps itwould be morally wrong for me to take a chance and doom my child toeternal damnation. I got over this worry pretty quickly, but now thatI’ve just rehearsed it again, I’m beginning to panic again. What in theworld is wrong with that reasoning? ...