I think the argument that Jane English presented was very respectable. The situation she presented was of two sisters, Cecile and Dana. Cecile was a child who had an easy upbringing and is now a successful lawyer while Dana was often sick and required much attention and now is a struggling artist. English states that because Cecile is well off and nearby, she has an obligation to help her parents. While I do believe this is true, I don’t think Dana has no obligation to her parents. She may not be able to afford to help them financially, she should still be able to support them emotionally. Because she lives far away, it can often be hard to do this. Often times, physical separation leads to emotional separation. Dana’s parents invested much time and money taking care of her and that should be reciprocated in any way possible. Obligation to parents is often misconstrued as a chore. I am partial to the idea that is based on friendship and a strong relationship. This is contrary to Li’s idea of parental obligation.

                Li states that even if our upbringing was not filled with love and friendship, we are still bound to our parents by familial obligation. I find this hard to agree with mainly because if a child were to give money to his parents just because of this obligation, the child would resent his parents for asking him this favor. Furthermore, if someone had a terrible childhood because their parents were emotionally and physically abusive, I don’t think they should be obligated to repay their parents just because they have a family tie. I think English’s idea is better adaptable to situations as such. I think if there is a mutual friendship in a parent/child relationship, the child should want to repay his or her parents.