Interesting. I’m not sure he can call himself an ethicist, and certainly not THE Ethicist, with that attitude. Based on Prof Appiah’s latest ethics advice column, he doesn’t follow the Ten Commandments, specifically #5, either.
An adult child of an apparently bad mother asks “The Ethicist,”
“Our parents divorced when we were young, and both were neglectful and emotionally abusive. My mother once kicked me out at 17 because her boyfriend told her to choose between him and me. …I see my mother about once every two years and speak to her roughly once a month.Now in her 80s, my mother is showing signs of Alzheimer’s. Her husband recently told me that if he dies first, I will be responsible for her care. I don’t think I can do it. The thought of having her live with me makes me physically sick. My siblings are unlikely to help. Since that conversation, almost a year ago, I have thought about this every day. What, if anything, do I owe my mother?”
I find the NYU philosophy professor’s answer astounding:
“We may owe something to those who raised us, but we have no duty to abandon our own lives to look after them, especially when they failed in their parental duties. Tell her husband that you’re not going to take on her care and that he needs to make the necessary preparations. He should consult with an elder-care lawyer, identify the local Area Agency on Aging and arrange advance directives and other long-term plans while your mother still has the capacity to participate in those decisions. A trustee to manage her affairs once he’s gone should be appointed. These are things you can suggest to him, anyway. They are not things you need to do.”
To be brief:
1. In such a situations it is the shared responsibility of all members of the family to sacrifice as necessary and do their best to care for the mother compassionately. The husband cannot ethically pass the job off on the woman’s adult children, nor can they ethically refuse to participate in her care.
2. One’s ethical obligations to one’s parents are not based on how well they parented. It isn’t a matter of quid pro quo, tit for tat, or just desserts. All children owe a responsibility to their parents unless they left their kids in a ditch to die.
3. “Honor your father and mother” is a cornerstone of a stable and civilized society, even when Mom and Dad are not particularly honorable.
4. The Golden Rule could not be clearer on this issue. Treat your aging and infirm parents as you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.
5. “You were a bad mother to me, so I’m going to be a bad child now, when you need me. So there.” That is not an ethical statement.
Ethics Alarms 
“One’s ethical obligations to one’s parents are not based on how well they parented.” You’re suggesting this is a universal ethical obligation unless one was left in a ditch to die. Being left in a ditch to die is not a dichotomy; it’s a continuum. Who can clearly locate the point on that continuum where filial obligation is ethically annulled? At the very least, this should consider the child’s and parent’s own histories, psychologies, vulnerabilities, and relationships, which is outside an advice columnist’s purview.
Imagine I had abused my children for twenty years. Would I want them to sacrifice their lives caring for me? Perhaps. Would I deserve it? Your appeal to The Golden Rule doesn’t directly answer that.
You were a bad mother… so I’m going to be a bad child.” The adult child isn’t necessarily seeking revenge. They may not be able to survive psychologically becoming their abuser’s caretaker. Mr. Marshall, you subtly reframed trauma as vindictiveness. I don’t think you have earned this confidence, and neither would I if I tried to argue the opposite conclusion with equal certainty.
Call me Jack. (Or Ishmael).
If you don’t like reciprocity (although I find your examples forced), then I’ll posit near absolutism here. Just as the parent has an absolute obligation to care for the child when the child is dependent and vulnerable (and nothing in the account offered The Ethicist suggests that the inquirer wasn’t cared for up until 17, when millions of young people have successfully taken care of themselves), the child has an absolute responsibility to do the same for the parent, and how well the parent performed his or her ethical duty doesn’t lesson or increase the duty from adult child to parent.
Yes, I read the tone of the letter as vindictive and well as based on dislike. Parents not liking their children or vice-versa has never been an ethical consideration, it’s a non-ethical consideration.
You make good points. But still, “…the parent has an absolute obligation…” and therefore “…the child has an absolute responsibility…” isn’t obviously symmetrical. An infant has nothing but his parents. A parent, in contrast, has lived an autonomous life, has had decades to build relationships, acquire wealth, hire help, buy insurance, and interact with public institutions as needed. The dependency isn’t morally identical. Still unanswered is where the abuse threshold lies (physical, emotional, sexual, neglect, etc.) beyond which filial obligation is nullified, or how the child’s psychological vulnerability influences where that threshold may be. But I respect your opinion, Jack, and I think you’ve got one of the greatest blogs out there, even when I don’t entirely agree with it.
Heck, I want, crave, admire and need readers who don’t agree with it! As long as they don’t filibuster like Alizia….