if the end justifies the means — Wallows

The ends justify some means, not all means.

Namely, the fiduciary duty a parent has towards their children. — Wallows

Care to put arm and legs on this? What fiduciary responsibility does a parent have towards his or her child?

Care to put arm and legs on this? What fiduciary responsibility does a parent have towards his or her child? — tim wood

I think this covers it:

Overview
When someone has a fiduciary duty to someone else, the person with the duty must act in a way that will benefit someone else, usually financially.

The person who has a fiduciary duty is called the fiduciary, and the person to whom the duty is owed is called the principal or the beneficiary. If the fiduciary breaches the fiduciary duties, he or she would need to account for the ill-gotten profit. The beneficiaries are typically entitled to damages.

Corporations and Fiduciary Duties
Directors of corporations, in fulfilling their managerial responsibilities, are charged with certain fiduciary duties. The primary duties are the duty of care and the duty of loyalty.

Duty of Care
The duty of care requires that directors inform themselves “prior to making a business decision, of all material information reasonably available to them.” Smith v. Van Gorkem, 488 A.2d 858 (1985).

Whether the directors were informed of all material information depends on the quality of the information, the advice available, and whether the directors had “sufficient opportunity to acquire knowledge concerning the problem before action.” Moran v. Household Intern., Inc., 490 A.2d 1059 (1985).

Moreover, a director may not simply accept the information presented. Rather, the director must assess the information with a “critical eye,” so as to protect the interests of the corporations and its stockholders. Smith v. Van Gorkem, 488 A.2d 858 (1985).

Duty of Loyalty
The duty of loyalty means that all directors and officers of a corporation working in their capacities as corporate fiduciaries must act without personal economic conflict. As the Delaware Supreme Court explained in Guth v. Loft, 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939), “Corporate officers and directors are not permitted to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interest."

Duty of Good Faith
Under the duty of good faith, a corporation's directors and officers must advance interests of the corporation ans fulfill their duties without violating the law. In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig., 906 A.2d 27 (Del. 2006).

Duty of Confidentiality
Under the duty of confidentiality, a corporation's directors and officers must keep corporate information confidential and not disclose it for their own benefit. Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503 (Del. 1939).

Duty of Prudence
Under the duty of prudence, a trustee must administer a trust with a degree of care, skill, and caution that a prudent trustee would exercise. Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 577 U.S. __ (2016).

Duty of Disclosure
This duty requires directors to act with “complete candor.” In certain circumstances, this requires the directors to disclose to the stockholders “all of the facts and circumstances” relevant to the directors’ decision. Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 577 U.S. __ (2016).

Charities and Fiduciary Duty
Some courts have not required officers of a charity to abide by the same rules as corporate officers. For example, an officer may be allowed to deal in a manner financially advantageous to himself or herself, so long as the charity is not subject to any expense. This does not mean, however, that an officer of a charity is permitted to divert earning capacity of his charity to himself. Boston Athletic Assoc. v. Int’l Marathons, Inc., 392 Mass. 356 (1984); Samuel & Jessie Kenney Presbyterian Home v. State, 174 Wash. 19 (1933).

Fiduciary or Confidential Relations
Certain relationships impose fiduciary duties. For example, attorneys have a fiduciary duty to their client, a principal to his agent, a guardian to his ward, a priest to his parishioner, and a doctor to his patient. Fiduciary duty is imposed whenever confidence is reposed on one side in a contractual relationship, so as to allow that side to exert influence and dominance over the other.

Further Reading
For more on the fiduciary duty, see this Florida State University Law Review article, this Florida Bar Association article, and this UCLA Law Review article. — Cornell Law Definition.

I think this covers it: — Wallows

For an officer of a corporation, but not for a parent. Parental duties and obligations exceed fiduciary duties.

Is this better?

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/fiduciary-duty-what-it-and-what-does-it-impose-upon-you

And if you're feeling courageous here's a better one:

https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3087&context=faculty_scholarship

"[T]herefore family relationships are infused with fiduciary
obligation. Most importantly, the legal relationship between parents and their minor children is
best understood as one that is regulated by fiduciary principles."

"Infused with," "regulated by." I'm a big fan of definitions to structure discussions, but this doesn't do it. Why do not you in your own words tell us what you're about?

Well, my conception of what constitutes a fiduciary duty wrt. to parenting is that one always acts in the best interest of the child.

Lawyers would flip out with such a definition; but, I think that nails down the gist of the issue.

And my point is that "fiduciary," what ever that means, in this context yields to "parental," whatever that means.

A distinction: fiduciary is satisfied when a standard has been met, irrespective of intent or effort, which in the financial case, does not really matter.

Parental concerns the intent and effort, whether or not the standard is met.

A rich parent who provides can yet be an atrocious parent. A poor parent who cannot entirely provide can be a superb parent. Yes?

Yes? — tim wood

Yes, I agree with everything said. No complaints or disagreement.

But, to act in the best interest of someone requires one to know what is best. So, is there some epistemic closure that can be achieved here or not?

But, to act in the best interest of someone requires one to know what is best. So, is there some epistemic closure that can be achieved here or not? — Wallows

By what standard? And what "what"? Nor is this trivial in a discussion of parenting.

Apparently George Washington was killed by his doctors. They knew what was best for him. But they "knew" wrong. But they didn't know that they "knew" wrong, they thought they know right. Where does that leave epistemic closure?

What is it that you want your gentle reader to get? Or agree with?

Btw, I suspect that US Marines are nearly always at cross purposes wrt Kant.

By what standard? And what "what"? Nor is this trivial in a discussion of parenting. — tim wood

The best interest, yes... Hmm, that's a bit hard to define.

How would you go about addressing this issue?

I often think about this quote with respect to my mother. It's a motto used in the United States Marine Core Corps — Wallows

It isn't everyday that mother-love and the USMC, semper fi, and all, are rolled up together that way. I'd avoid it, myself.

The relationship between parent and child is not "fiduciary" -- which describes a relationship between a trustee and a beneficiary. The language of the USMC, and the language of trusts are not suitably applied to the relationship between a parent and a child. The relationship between parent and child is deeper than that between a trustee and the beneficiary.

Let's keep our categories distinct. The family is the family, work is work, the military is the military, banks and trusts are contradictions in terms, and so forth.

The language appropriate to family has to do with devotion and love, to caring, nurturing, and sacrifice. The abandonment of a child by his or her parent (male or female) may be a life shaping (or life-deforming) experience.

By the way, it's "corps" and not "core". And if you add an 'e' you get a corpse. I'm sure you knew that.

Hmm, I guess there's nothing wrong with a Sunday Semper Fi from son to mother.

It is all in good faith.

Really now? You've never heard of mothers abandoning their duty towards their own children, unless we're talking about crackheads, opiate addicts, and such? That's hard to believe, but even if true, that is no argument. I know for a fact that this can and does happen.

It's really rare.

So then why didn't you say that to begin with? Why say that you've never heard of it, and then climb down to it being really rare?

Who cares? Stop trying to make the world fit your prejudice. Mothers can betray their duty just like fathers.

But it's rarer for women than men. Doesn't that prove something?

But it's rarer for women than men. Doesn't that prove something? — Wallows

Something? It doesn't prove what you seem to want it to. You're not being a scientist, and this is a matter for science. If you're genuinely interested, then look into the science.

But, it's true!

But, it's true! — Wallows

It's just another hasty generalisation, influenced by a harmful stereotype which you're choosing to spread.

It's just another hasty generalisation, influenced by a harmful stereotype which you're choosing to spread. — S

But, women do better in schools, are nicer people, aren't backstabbers, don't go to prison nearly as much as males.

So, aren't they better than us males in some regards?

But, women do better in schools, are nicer people, aren't backstabbers, don't go to prison nearly as much as males. — Wallows

That's a mixture of fact and poorly considered opinion. Opinion which is not just ignorant, but condemnable. I don't know what your true purpose with these sort of comments is, whether you're trolling or sincere, but I don't like it.

So, aren't they better than us males in some regards? — Wallows

Again, "in some regards" is very different to more specific claims and generalisations. You're moving the goalposts again, perhaps deliberately.

My instincts are telling me that I should stop engaging you.

But, I'm at least looking for affirmation here. Aren't women just basically better suited for some roles than men are or are I getting this all mixed up?

Aren't women just basically better suited for some roles than men are or are I getting this all mixed up? — Wallows

And now we've taken a hard right turn. Women have their place and men theirs. Lovely.

Maybe I'm confused, but, I think women are just as good if not better than men in some regards.

Have I spoken some heresy?

mothers being the more caring and thoughtful nest builders — Wallows

Mothers don't abandon their children as often as men do. Much, much more often than men they hold on to their offspring, doing a perfectly wretched job of caring for them, or using them as pawns for benefits or for various neurotic needs. And that's without crack or smack, booze and weed.

Ride pubic transit more often, and observe.

Have I spoken some heresy? — Wallows

It's sexist, poorly thought out, and a continuation of your ongoing nonsense about how you love your mommy.

You have. The heresy is that one sex is better than the other. Women are not more moral than men. They are merely morally and immoral, delightful and disgusting, revolting and remarkable in different ways.

I don't want to offend wallows, so I'll post this cut for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6rKrO5iLZs

From the Bible to the popular song
There's one theme that we find right along
Of all ideals they hail as good
The most sublime is motherhood

There was a man though, who it seems
Once carried this ideal to extremes
He loved his mother and she loved him
And yet his story is rather grim

There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex
You may have heard about his odd complex
His name appears in Freud's index
'Cause he loved his mother

His rivals used to say quite a bit
That as a monarch he was most unfit
But still in all they had to admit
That he loved his mother

Yes, he loved his mother like no other
His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother
One thing on which you can depend is,
He sure knew who a boy's best friend is

When he found what he had done
He tore his eyes out, one by one
A tragic end to a loyal son
Who loved his mother

So be sweet and kind to mother
Now and then have a chat
Buy her candy or some flowers
Or a brand new hat

But maybe you had better let it go at that
Or you may find yourself with a quite complex complex
And you may end up like Oedipus
I'd rather marry a duck-billed platypus Than end up like old Oedipus Rex

It was meant as sincere. Aren't women better than men at some things and likewise men at some things? I'm trying to be impartial, and this hasn't anything to do with my mother.