parent, the child would not exist. There are exceptions of course, in cases where the parent has not done anything to contribute positively to the child's life. In cases where the parents are able to fend for themselves, the duty still lies. There would then be an added factor involving choice, grounds that we shall not tread for now due to the limited word count. One may argue that by doing so would actually go against the principle of Utilitarianism, something we learnt in class. Utilitarianism proposes that we should maximize pleasure and minimize pain, carrying the view that everyone is equal. It therefore suggests that we shouldn't treat our parents in any way more special than a stranger. Should taking care of parents be emotionally, physically or financially exhausting at the least bit (which would be the case), one should not do so. Also, if one does so, the belief suggests that one should also take care of a homeless but healthy man if it makes him happy and if one had the disposable income to do so. I would like to bring in the case proposed in the earlier classes, where Peter Singer illustrated the drowning child example. Though we might get our clothes muddy, it would prevent the death of the child. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. The quantity of pleasure matters as much as the