This chapter carries forward the general themes already discussed into debates about family and familial responsibilities. If ‘environmental paternalism’ captures the idea that autonomy and paternalism are most reasonably aligned when we concentrate on creating fair social conditions, what does this imply for such debates? I have so far referred to individuals as the pertinent agents. But what of families? Does the principle of autonomy become less relevant because it seems somehow facile to portray family members as autonomous towards one another? Do paternalistic arguments strengthen or weaken when we consider interventions for, and into, families? What should we even mean by ‘the family’?

This chapter examines two questions to help us gain a foothold on such matters. The second is concerned with filial obligations and the distribution of responsibilities for the health and care needs of older people; but first we address a larger, background question over which kinds of families and households government should support. While Chapters Six and Seven took Mill’s utilitarian liberalism as their starting point, we draw here on literatures that relate more to virtue ethics.

Family and state

Should the state actively promote marriage?

Are some family types better than others? Should government encourage the formation of such families while discouraging and excluding others? How can we decide what ‘better’ means?

Two key arguments are associated with, though not exclusive to, conservatism (for example, R O’Neill, 2003). The first is that the desire for kinship and intimacy is a biological imperative, with the majority of people wishing to perpetuate their bloodline by raising children. The second is that families form the basis of social stability and wellbeing, providing the moral and emotional orientation towards tradition and authority without which children would have no self-discipline or respect for others. The best families are therefore those that raise children within norms and parameters stressing honesty, fidelity, responsibility and diligence. A married partnership offers the most appropriate environment because it communicates to children a sense of continuity, security, commitment and faithfulness. This, further, implies heterosexual marriage, given the family’s biological, reproductive function. Commentators differ over the extent to which other household types (single parents, gay/lesbian partnerships, heterosexual cohabitees) should be permitted, but even those who accept some diversity would nevertheless make policies concerning taxation, adoption, fostering, inheritance and welfare entitlements most favourable to the married, heterosexual couple (Rauch, 2003; cf. Knight, 2003; Levin, 2005).