The Filial Art

Journal of Applied Philosophy 2 (1):19-29 (1985)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

ABSTRACT Psychological or political criticism of the parent‐child relation presupposes a normative account of that relation. Such an account is here provided. The normative account can shed most light when the parent‐child relation is presented recognizably, not in Utopian disguise. The purposes of reasonable people partly depend on their interpretations of those of their parents. This is so whether such people accept or reject any particular parental purposes. The filial art sticks to the project of working out the enacted interpretation—until it gets it approximately right. There is a corresponding parental art, neither compensatory nor sacrificial

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,314

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Who counts as a parent for the purposes of filial obligations?Cameron Fenton - 2017 - Etikk I Praksis - Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 1 (1):17-32.
A Project View of the Right to Parent.Benjamin Lange - 2024 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 41 (5):804-826.
Four Theories of Filial Duty.Simon Keller - 2006 - Philosophical Quarterly 56 (223):254 - 274.
Sufficientarian Parenting Must be Child-Centered.Anca Gheaus - 2017 - Law, Ethics and Philosophy 5:189-197.
Parental Virtue and Prenatal Genetic Alteration Research.Ryan Tonkens - 2015 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12 (4):651-664.
The Friendship Model of Filial Obligations.Nicholas Dixon - 1995 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 12 (1):77-87.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-10

Downloads
30 (#787,710)

6 months
1 (#1,572,794)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references