Both perspectives can be argued logically. Personal values are not arrived at by logic. Personal values are about the priorities that someone has subjectively chosen (or more commonly absorbed from others). They’re usually guided more by past experiences and reactions of temperament than by logic.
Imagine that someone were to come to your home this evening and give you a 94 million dollar stealth fighter jet. They just show up and your house and say ‘This is yours. It’s a gift. …Oh, and also it’s your responsibiility to keep it working in optimal condition. …Oh, and also, we expect you to use this stealth fighter to keep the region safe and protect it from any possible attacks.’
You’d probably think that this person who gave you the 94 million dollar jet ‘owed’ you: 1) an explanation as to why this ‘gift’ was being thrust upon you, 2) training in how to maintain and fly the thing without hurting yourself and someone else, 3) a dedicated staff and team of people who can make sure that everything is handled properly, since you’ve likely never managed a ‘gift’ like this before.
One reason that you might feel you were owed this is that you never asked for a stealth fighter jet. It’s a very valuable gift, but it’s also something of a burden and protecting the region is a heavy responsibility. You never planned or prepared for this. Instead, for some reason, this person/people somehow decided you’re the right person for the job. You’d probably feel a bit put upon, to say the least.
That’s the logic behind a statement like
"You owe your parents nothing and your children everything"
The idea of that statement is that the onus of care is on the giver of a thing. As most adolescents will say or think at one point or another, “I didn’t ask to be born!!!”
But then, there’s the other point of view. Raising a child entails so much sacrifice, so much giving, so much hard work, and through most of that, the child is returning very little tangible value to the people who are sacrificing so much for them. Therefore, when the child is finally able to produce some value, some of it ‘by rights’ should be offered to the people who have possibly given so much.
Both positions can be argued quite logically.
Meh. Personally, I don’t really agree with either point of view. But that’s not because they’re illogical. It’s because I don’t want to live with people who are only doing things for me because they feel that they ‘owe’ me. To me, that sounds more like a company or a courtroom than a desirable relationship. But those are just my own subjective values and preferences.
