When a couple decides to have a child they are agreeing to be responsible for the life they bring into the world. According to Locke, the conditions for tacit consent begin with being aware of the situation and the consequences. Secondly, there must be a period of consideration available. Thirdly, the consequences of not accepting cannot be detrimental. Therefore, when a couple has sex knowing that they run the risk of pregnancy, they are aware of the situation. When a couple finds out that the woman is pregnant and they talk about possible outcomes, this suffices a consideration period and provides a reasonable way to express objections. For the third requisite the couple only has two options. They can choose to have the baby or they can choose to have an abortion. The option they choose depends on which outcome would be most detrimental to them personally. For example, a 13 year-old girl who gets pregnant migh

This example complies with the requirements of the principle of fair play. Rawls would argue that in this instance, the units of the family are cooperative in the sense that the mother works extremely hard to provide the best environment she can for her children. The majority of the family cooperates and sacrifices to ensure the security of a place to call home. This example also shows how one can benefit from the situation by not cooperating. The teenager who did not get a job benefits from the hard work of the mother and sibling. The teenager who does not actively participate in contributing still benefits from having a roof over above their head, food, and electricity.

Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and though it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation: yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common offspring, who have a right to be nourished and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves. (Locke, 37)

Suppose we combine the two examples I have just described and form a third example in which a mother who works just as hard as the mother in example two but the children, despite the mothers good intentions, rebel and fall into dealing drugs and the life of crime. Let us suppose that in this scenario the teenagers are dealing drugs in the house and have no respect for their mother who earns an honest living to provide for them. In example one I explained how parents are obligated to care for their children through tacit consent. Locke stated that children have the right to be nourished and maintained by their parents until they are old enough to provide for themselves. It is illogical to think that in a situation such as this that a parent is responsible for paying the rent, providing nourishment, and showing affection to children who do not even respect the rules of the household. Is a parent still obligated to their children if their children's actions jeopardize their moral beliefs, violate their parental authority, and place the family in danger? Per

Some common words found in the essay are:
Government Locke, According Locke, Law Nature, Duty Obligation, obligation obey, obey parents, fair play, tacit consent, principle fair play, principle fair, child obey, care children, child child, nourished maintained, addict mother, obligation obey parents, child child obey, scheme social cooperation, nourished maintained parents,
Approximate Word count = 1510
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)