It is no doubt that there has been a population explosion in the last five decades. The unprecedented rise in the number of the mouths to be fed resulted from technological advancements which have favored better health care for all. Another contributor is social awakening of human rights advocacies which vie for mandatory health care for all. The governments through continuous legislations are obligated to oversee the wellness of citizens. We are in a transitional period in which responsibility is shifting from collective role of society to sole obligations of the family members. Gone are the days when a person would drag his or her feet in the know that the extended family is there to stand up for them.
One thing that motivates employees to heed regulations in their work places is not that they want to explore their expertise but rather to ensure a continuous supply of their family’s needs. The famous saying of bread winner attests to the fact that there must be someone sweating to ensure a happy and well fed family. A well fed family does not mean that the tummy is always full. It has everything to do with a collection of human needs and wants. An expansive ocean of unlimited wants puts constant and unpleasant pressure on the pockets of providers. The acceptance by a family member to contribute part or whole of his earnings to the family is possible through various means. There are those who, out of love and care, take up their rightful obligations in ensuring wellness of the family members.
On the other side, some wait for the family to take up a legal action against the responsible persons. When a ruling is made in favor of beneficiaries, the mutual love relationship is not so much important but legal duty takes the paramount importance. The aspect of self sacrifice is eliminated and replaced by legal duty. Whether or not, self-interest is considered is a freedom, it has no place when legal action is taken against someone. There are those things which are important in maintenance of life while others are just as good to spice it up.
However, no matter the level of urgency, what has to be acquired through spending is equally important as others gained for free. Needs ranging from food, shelter, clothing and medical care all the way to a posh car and a house carry the same weight to whoever is in need. It is now definite that the unlimited needs can be met through either of the avenues described.
When self interest supersede familial obligations
However, our focus is on a situation where a willing person strikes a balance between what he must set aside for family use and what he or she can keep for personal use. A person who is responsible enough does not sit back until the family starts suffering to trigger for him to act. There are three categories of persons classified according to what drives them towards contributing to family kitty. The first category is those who use proactive approach in the settlement of family bills. They prepare in advance a mechanism in which no deficit will be encountered. The second category is guided by a looming shortage. The period of lack could be separated by a few hours or days. A third type of individuals are those who wait until there is no stock of food, power supply has been terminated or the auctioneers are about to confiscate household items.
When a situation is created such that a person in charge of what a family uses is irresponsible, a serious dilemma looms. A number of questions fill the thoughts of many people; those in business and the employed fraternity. The big grey area is how much are enough for the family and what proportion of their earnings are they comfortable in contributing. A point of compromise can be struck such that the family is self sufficient without even a single cent contributed by individuals.
The question of how much a person must contribute is a concept to consider. A person is not possible to be amicably respected without a direct reference to what he does with his earnings. The evaluation of people in leadership, for example, is squarely based on how he relates with his dependants. Therefore it important to ensure that family gets what it needs even if it means giving it all.
There are situations when giving all earning is the only option left for a family member. No one in the right mind can sit back and watch his kinsmen languish in abject suffering just because a decision was earlier made on what limits of his earnings must be contributed to the settlement of family bills. This is a common scenario for most low and medium income group who even after trying to prioritize they are unable to withhold anything. Another rare and rather unfortunate situation is when an emergency occur demanding a lump sum amount of money. Abrupt hospitalization is an example of unanticipated cost which calls for desperate actions. Giving up all of the earnings is warranted by such circumstances.
The other extreme of what should actually be contributed is backed by the need to prepare for the future. It is no doubt that a person with a foresight takes action in securing a self sufficient future. It is because of this preparedness that a person can be justified in with holding a portion of his earnings.
When a member of a family is ill, others are more obliged to care for him or her. They have to give up their self-interests in order to care for the sick member. Subsequently, in moral rules, we get much as we have given, so we get more attention when we care for other family members. But when are obliged to make surrenders that appear to have more burdens than benefits, then we tend to balance the outcomes. At this point, we are required to ask how our ethical deeds give sense to our life. Helplessness is understood to be an element of human circumstance, some individuals being greeted with more requirements than others while others are hallowed with more potency. So those who are capable are more obliged to give their self interest to care for those who are vulnerable and needy.
A mother who is employed has to give up family obligation in order for her to work. In this she satisfies herself interest ‘for good’ in that it is also good for the family. What the mother achieve at the end of the day will come back to the family. Family obligations are hard to please unless someone is first individually satisfied. So we ask, can an unhappy individual can be good, mindful member of a family? Can someone who is in an unhappy matrimony be an effective father to his children?
So it means that an individual have to first satisfy his or her needs first that enables him or her to be happy. It has been viewed that people who are personally fulfilled and grateful are extra dedicated to their family then when they are less happy with themselves. Also, when an individual getting older, he or she is more self centered than when young and capable of giving support. At that age a person must have fulfilled his or her family obligations. Out of the discussions described above, is no particular level of contribution that a person must give so as to display his or her commitment to family obligations. It is dictated by prevailing circumstances.