Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Doug Morris

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    There are cultural and hormonal influences pushing us toward tribalism. We must be aware of this. We must also overcome whatever is irrational in it. Biological differences among races are minor. Differences among individuals are far more important. Any emotion carries with it a temptation to be led by it. People often do not know better than to follow this temptation. People who do know better may nevertheless follow it. We must resist this temptation and be led by reason. We are still at a very early stage of the spread of Objectivism. Objectivism still has little influence on how society in general goes. For most people, the mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis of thought still dominates their philosophy, whether explicit or implicit, and therefore plays a large role in their thinking and thus in their actions. Two points in particular. The altruist morality confuses many people as to what is in their self-interest. Mixed-economy statism has been corrupting both government and business for a long time, resulting in behaviors that are not consistent with reason and self-interest.
  3. Doug Morris

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    It is impossible to prove a causal relationship using statistics alone. A proof of a causal relationship must include an explanation of how the causal relationship works. If a statistical correlation is used as evidence, it must be accompanied by consideration of whether there can be other explanations for the correlation. This does not mean that it is impossible to prove a causal relationship, just that statistics alone doesn't cut it. History is full of wars. This does not mean that wars are necessary or conducive to human survival. Hormones and the actions they prompt people to have played a very important role in the evolution and survival of the human genus and the modern human species. We should not completely ignore them in making choices. But our rational conclusions should overrule any hormonal promptings that we can see are irrational. Are you saying that Objectivism is a type of rationalism? How do you define rationalism? If a person chooses to participate in a team sport, he or she accepts an obligation to act accordingly and to make the success of the team an important purpose. A professional athlete is providing a service for pay. It can be rational and moral for an athlete or fan to change teams, regardless of how many billion people disapprove. But it can also be rational, moral, and consistent with Objectivism to build a relationship with a team, as either a member or a fan, that makes one reluctant to change teams. The mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis of ideas has historically dominated most people's philosophy, whether explicit or implicit, and has therefore played a very important role in their thinking, and thus in their actions. We can achieve a great deal of change by re-engineering people's philosophy, without any re-engineering of the brain whatsoever. One of the things we must decide rationally is how much time and effort to spend analyzing any given decision. How much time and effort should I spend deciding which item to order from a restaurant menu?
  4. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    But are you making a moral claim here? Irrationality is bad therefore it is incompatible with the family? Okay let's take a modern day example. Football (If you're American I'm talking about soccer). Football is by far the most popular sport on the planet, with an estimated fan base of roughly 3 billion. It is adored in practically every culture, race, religion. It is an expression of (or an outlet for) our inherent tribal nature. Duty, obligation and loyalty permeate throughout the sport. Players who leave their teams for bigger pay checks are derided as soulless mercenaries whereas one club men like Totti are celebrated for their undying loyalty and devotion. Coaches often refuse to manage the rivals of their former teams. "True" fans are described as those that stick by the team through thick and thin, no matter how boring their style of play or how poor their results. Many fans only support the team they do because their father did or because "they grew up supporting them". Those that do jump ship and support better teams are derided as glory supporters. I'm not saying I support this behaviour or I think it is rational, or moral. I have a very different view on support in football. But one cannot deny this overwhelming evidence about human behaviour. Only a fool could think this will ever change without literally re-engineering the brain. Perhaps in the future with a possible fusion between AI and the human brain (or replacement of), plus the exciting horizon of bio-engineering, humans will radically change and even change their nature. Even the current method of reproduction could change to "growing" new humans outside the womb - a possible next stage after surrogacy. I don't completely rule out a society without the family as it currently exists in reality. Objectvists must confront this issue head on and think about what the family would really look like in a truly Objectivist world. I think you've hit on an important point here. I said the values you like because Rand describes the relationship as one based on "shared values". If you have no shared values, why would you want to do anything for them unless you made a promise that you would? But I have also used the concept in the way you have described by saying "valued gained". Now you say it is considerably more complicated than that but for me I read that as something which is undefinable and very fuzzy. If someone helped raise you, you have no obligation to them. Up until the age of 18, you are under the responsibility of the adult because you are not deemed a rational independent human yet. To be obliged to help them in return in adult life would surely be an unchosen obligation. * The Atlas society states something similar to your case, that whatever the parent does for you above the obligatory minimum while raising you, you owe in return which rationally justifies you helping your parents in old age as values traded. But i refer to my sentence above * And any case, how does one define the obligatory minimum? And how does one define the correct amount of value traded? These are impossible tasks. In reality, humans just don't think this way. They usually believe it is their duty to look after their parents as a inherent obligation. And also if you share no or little values with your parent, what do you "owe" them? Yeah I agree, I'm using it in this sense too, but including a limit. We all agree it is reasonable to leave a family member in extreme cases. But yeah the duty/loyalty/obligation aspect is in a realm separate from any value consideration. As a side note, I remember when I first read about Objectivism, I started worrying about all my actions and thoughts and whether they were rational or not. Every now and then I'd type in a random act or desire into google and ask if it was rational according to Objectivism or try to find what Rand thought on the matter. This idea that we have to rationally process every single thing in our brain is incredibly stressful to keep up. Have you ever had a similar experience?
  5. (Or: FEE Offers Spending Advice to Looters) An article hosted at the Foundation for Economic Education illustrates perfectly something Ayn Rand once told its founder, Leonard Read, in a letter: I oppose UBI and welfare because of what happens before the money falls from the helicopters. (Image via Pixabay.)[D]on't think that any kind of law of self-preservation would work here -- that a man would want to produce merely in order to eat. He won't. For self-preservation to assert itself, there must be some reason for the self to wish to be preserved. Whatever a man has accepted, consciously or unconsciously, through routine or through choice as the purpose of his life -- that will determine his economic activity. And the same holds true of society and of men's convictions about the proper economics of society. That which society accepts as its purpose and ideal (or to be exact, that which men think society should accept as its purpose and ideal) determines the kind of economics men will advocate and attempt to practice; since economics are only the means to an end. When the social goal chosen is by its very nature impossible and unworkable (such as collectivism), it is useless to point out to people that the means they've chosen to achieve it are unworkable. Such means go with such a goal; there are no others. You cannot make men abandon the means until you have persuaded them to abandon the goal. [bold added] (Letters of Ayn Rand, pp. 257-258)With this in mind, and consider what a title like, "Universal Basic Income Has Been Tried Before. It Didn't Work." portends. The conclusion isn't pretty for anyone who values individual rights, including that to property: Supporting work through the earned income tax credit is consistent with American values of dignity and self-sufficiency. The Heritage Foundation has proposed ways to reform welfare programs to promote those goals. Evidence from the negative income tax experiment strongly suggests that a comprehensive universal basic income program would significantly reduce work and increase dependency. Perhaps advocates are hoping for a different result this time around. But if history is any indication, they are bound to be disappointed. [bold added]Of course giving money away reduces the desire for people to earn some of their own, but pardon me for disagreeing with the Heritage Foundation on what the proper goal of government is; my answer is that a proper government protects individual rights. Passing out loot for whatever alleged purpose does not alter (or sanctify) the fact that it is loot, and was ultimately stolen from someone who produced it (or received it freely from someone who did). As when conservatives sell the farm when they implicitly praise socialists or plead that they are "impractical" -- yet wonder why that thoroughly deadly and discredited creed remains popular -- so it is that the laudable desire to argue against "Universal Basic Income" (the latest repackaging of handed-out loot) degenerates into squabbling about how to reform welfare (the old name for the same thing). That is not what making a stand for freedom looks like, not at all. -- CAV Link to Original
  6. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    There isn't anyone I know of that thinks this. At least not any writer that I'm aware of. That it's a closed system does not make it a complete system.
  7. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    That is in no way, shape or form true. Ayn Rand is not Jesus Christ the Savior, she was just a person, like the rest of us. Also, she's been dead for 37 years now. Stone cold dead. Not resurrected, not sitting on the right hand side of God, but buried in some dirt, and well on her way to decomposing. There's no Objectivist, in any faction, who would think that we all got done coming up with useful philosophy 37 years ago. Ayn Rand herself wouldn't have thought that humanity is all done coming up with useful philosophy, after she died. That's not what closed Objectivism means. Closed Objectivism simply tries to preserve her work for posterity, uncorrupted by people who claim to speak for her. She deserves that much. If you wish to come up with new philosophy, go right ahead. I'll read it if it's interesting. And if you think your philosophy has been influenced by Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), go ahead and cite her as an influence. But that's all the level of familiarity you're allowed, as far as "closed Objectivists" like myself are concerned. You're not allowed to claim any kind of deeper connection than that, because, guess what: you don't have it. Objectivism is HER philosophy, and hers alone. Anyone who contributed only did so with HER direct approval. Anyone else, who claims to be adding to HER philosophy without her approval, is an interloper. The book on Objectivism closed when Ayn Rand died. The book on rational philosophy is wide open, you just have to earn your paragraph, page or chapter in it on your own, as a philosopher, without claiming any kind of magical connection to Ayn Rand.
  8. Hi, Originally posted this article on my minds page earlier today: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand If you're interested, I also have a rebuttal to Stefan Molyneux's UPB: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-objective-critique-of-stefan-molyneux-s-universally-prefe-891837573402587136
  9. Yesterday
  10. EC

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Why does being genetically linked to a group of people somehow create demands on yourself if you don't share the same values as they do or even worse find them to be evil? And if it does, since *all* of humanity is genetically linked when you go back far enough, then everyone would have this "duty" not apply to everyone else in existence through all time? And since *all* life on earth is genetically linked and has a common ancestor this same duty would require you to treat cyanobacteria living 10 miles below ground with the same duty you treat your mother because we are all part of the same "family". Either genetic "bond" requires "duty" to all members in a class or such duty should not properly exist in reality as it implies something that supersedes and subordinates free will.
  11. NewbieOist

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Only if you choose it not because you believe it's a rational value but because you feel obligated by others to choose it. In other words, you let others dictate the choice for you.
  12. Eiuol

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I'll phrase it differently then, because there is a lot of overlap between the two. Exactly because some amount of duty is irrational, it is incompatible with family. There are other more fundamental aspects of family besides duty, even if duty is common. Yeah, that's not what statistics is for. Statistics is to deal with uncertainty and measure uncertainty. A scientist uses statistics as evidence of a phenomenon, but needs to use further reasoning techniques to induce a new idea rather than to deduce one. So I'm saying you didn't even try to make a causal relationship. We disagree what counts as evidence in the first place, or what makes for sufficient evidence. This is a huuugggggggeeeeeeeee leap in reasoning. You basically ask how could be otherwise, and stated therefor civilizations were built this way. I'm not asking you to write a book for your case, but I am asking you to have more than one sentence about us/them mentality. sNerd explained how this is not quite accurate. It's not about simply how many values you like that a person holds. I'm not sure where you get this idea that you judge a person based on how you like their values that they hold. You value a person for the value they provide to you. If a person helped raise you, they have literally provided a value to you; they allowed you to develop into an adult. To that extent at least, you owe them something. Because of this, likely they will share some values with you. You might like them more if they share more values with you, but it's considerably more complicated than that. Duty, in the sense most of us here are using it, is not even looking at the value the other person provides. You wouldn't need to justify valuing your parents because they helped raise you, you wouldn't even need to think about value. Saying they are your parents would be enough.
  13. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    But what if you choose it because you believe it is your duty? That would then make it irrational according to Objectivism.
  14. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I'm not claiming rationality is moral or immoral. My argument in this thread is not about morality. It is about whether Objectivist pricinples are compatible with the family as it exists in reality, regardless of what is right or wrong or how one defines what is right or wrong. As far as I understand it, practically everything is only a correlational relationship. Statisticians cannot even agree on what constitutes a causal relationship but the bar is very high to determine a causal relationship as a concrete fact. It seems like you're asking the impossible. I argue the evidence strongly suggests this is the case to a very high degree based on the way humans behave in reality across different cultures and times. The evidence is enormous. Just take the example I gave you about China. A culture that literally regards sacrifice to your parents as a key virtue stretching back thousands of years? Or Christians who have always taught that it is our duty to have children? Or take the evolution of Chivalry (inherently duty based). But I don't just rely on history. There is a logical argument at play too. Humans have evolved to protect and sacrifice for their family. It is perfectly natural for our species to evolve this way. How else would we survive without giving and expecting loyalty to one another to our families, communities and countries? This is how civilisations and empires are/were built. It was based on the premise that the land and people inside a given area were "us" and outsiders were "them" and one should be loyal to those inside over and above those outside. One of the common talking points about Brexit and immigration was the idea that we Brits should "look after our own" first. Trump: America first. You cannot believe this is based on a purely rational argument? (Unless you argue it is rational to be true to human nature and therefore true to a form of tribal loyalty to country). Yeah I said before I see no difference between loyalty duty and obligation and that I have been using all three to mean the same thing. "if you add reasons" - then they are the reasons. You owe nothing to them (according to Objectvism). Your only owe allegiance to your principles and so you only judge your parents based on their values. If you don't like their values, they are not family (blood has no significance) and you certainly don't owe anything to them even though they raised you. If you do like their values then yes you may want to voluntarily do something for them. That is not an "obligation", "duty" or "loyalty" and Rand would not use those terms to explain a voluntary action based on judging values. She would only talk about chosen obligations like choosing to promise to do something for them (after judging their values) and therefore being obliged to fulfill that promise and maintain your integrity. If you are doing the action for them based on anything other than the trader principle, then this is outside the realm of Objectivist philosophy and it is outside this aspect - the realm of pure value trading between people - that loyalty, duty and obligation exists (unless to principles). Now some people may call this realm human nature and then justify it by saying that one ought to be true to human nature and therefore it is rational and also in ones self interest. But then this is no different to insisting one is obliged to have children because reproduction is inherent in human nature. And I believe this is what Cicero is getting at but I haven't studied him in depth yet so im hesistant to commit to this. Cicero says it is unjust to live as a loner outcast from society because it is inherent in human nature that we are social animals. That was never my aim. I have no concern with morality here. If you haven't read it, I'd recommend checking out The Great Debate by Yuval Levin. It gets right to the heart of the conflict between rationalism and conservatism.
  15. DC-area attorney Nick James and Brett Stephens of the New York Times write very different columns that each, in their own way, show how badly Americans crave a real alternative to the central planning of the Democratic Party and the central planning lite of the Republicans. First, we have James rightly arguing that it is not Kanye West who is nuts for supporting Donald Trump, but the black Americans who are piling abuse on tip of him for their decades of loyalty to the Democrats: Thanks to those policies, although only 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families in 1960, fifty years later more than 70 percent of black children experienced this sad fate. The truth is anyone who wants to know how well the Democratic Party has rewarded the black community for its loyalty only needs to look at Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, or Milwaukee to find an answer. In these cities, high rates of crime, poverty, academic failure, and racial inequality remain the norm after five or more decades of Democratic control. Indeed, as Jesse Jackson lamented in a 2016 article, "the injustice is worse in modern Milwaukee than it was in segregated Birmingham. Black poverty, unemployment, and impoverished neighborhoods are all worse." [links omitted] But what policies, Van Horn? you might ask. Well, one can support Trump without being nuts, and while I agree that school choice (which James mentions Democrats opposing) would be a very good step in the right direction, Trump's trade policies -- which James seems to support -- will actually have similar job-destroying effects to many Democratic policies, such as the minimum wage, and for the same reasons. But James is right to indicate that West should hardly take flack for seeking an alternative. It's just too bad that Donald Trump is failing to offer a real one, just like Reagan did. The Republicans see themselves as more "practical," but seem oblivious to the need for questioning the moral base they share with the Democrats -- and thus still sets their agenda. Moving on over to Bret Stephens, we see the Democrats failing to take the high ground in the mid-term elections, where, he indicates , they could have brought rational discussion back. He borrows an apt metaphor, of the left "piercing its own tongue," so it can "marginalize itself and then enjoy its own company." Image via Pixabay.And yet it is. Predictably. Once again, American liberalism has pierced its own tongue. It pierced its tongue on CNN this week, when Hillary Clinton told Christiane Amanpour that "you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about." And when former Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday, "When they go low, we kick 'em." It pierced its tongue last week when New York's Representative Jerrold Nadler pledged to use a Democratic House majority to open an investigation into Kavanaugh's alleged perjury and the "whitewash" investigation by the F.B.I. A party that can't change its mind and won't change the subject meets the classic definition of a fanatic. [links omitted]Unlike the Republicans, who shy away from the collectivist political implications of the altruist morality they share with them, the Democrats embrace its ugliness to the point of alienating many people, and driving them into the arms of the Republicans. Too bad for now that we have a non-capitalist in the White House as the "alternative" to the party that so richly deserves irrelevance, and seems so hell-bent on achieving it. I hope he does not end up in the Hooveresque position of making them look like they deserve another chance in power. -- CAV Link to Original
  16. Boydstun

    My Verses

    (To see text of these poems most clearly, click on the photo.)
  17. Eiuol

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Do realize that part of your claim is that irrationality is not always immoral. We could argue about the details of exactly what the effects are, but the whole premise I'm working from is that rationality is moral, irrationality is immoral. I treat those as basic facts. If we don't agree on that much, the very moral foundation we are using is completely different. Much of your position so far is a historical one based on correlational rather than causal relationships. To be sure, aspects of irrationality will often coexist with aspects of rationality within a society. This doesn't mean that the irrational aspects contributed to the positive development of that society. Your reasoning is fine about family in general, yet again, you insist that duty is the aspect of family that change society for the better. Another issue is I think you conflate obligation with duty. Based on what 2046 said, the way Cicero meant duty is more like an obligation. You treat these words as identical. Obligation would be like, for example, if you were raised well by your parents, you owe at least something to them. Their value isn't nothing, and as a matter of justice, when you benefit from someone, you ought to pay them back in some way. Duty is more like *because* they are your parents and for no other reason you owe them something. If you add reasons like they were good parents, or they help get you into a good elementary school when you're going up, or they instilled some of your values like honesty, this would be an obligation. So when I say loyalty, I'm thinking of this. If they treat you well, or do right by you, you should acknowledge it and act in a way that reinforces it. I actually find history to be extremely important. All I've been saying is that you have failed to connect historical evidence to a moral principle. Historical evidence isn't proof, because proof requires additional inferences. Correlation is never sufficient. The same goes for etymological arguments. It is interesting to note that "blood is thicker than water" is a phrase has been around for a long time. Whether it demonstrates anything else depends entirely on how you used induction to conclude that duty to family is critical to the development of civilization.
  18. Craig24

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    But is that really a duty? It wasn't god, people or nature that imposed this responsibility on the parents. There are options: abstinence, safe sex, abortion, adoption. If you choose to bypass all four, you're choosing to be a parent.
  19. Last week
  20. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Having a child is very different though. It is in a separate category in terms of commitment and time/resources spent. Having a child is a minimum 18 year commitment. Once you make the decision you can't go back. It means looking after a human that is heavily dependent on you. 100 percent dependent for the first few years. It is a massive drain on your time and money. And as an Objectivist you would have to be fully committed to the responsibility of raising the child. Arts and Sports are mere hobbies (unless you make money out of them but then that would be productive work). You can leave a Romantic love at any time and they're not dependent on you like a child is. Although I agree that there could be a conflict there. Maybe Rand defines love as the second highest good? How far down the list would raising a child be? Either way, productive work is a critical aspect of life according to Objectivism and there probably isn't a larger commitment that would pull you away from that than starting a family. Which leaves one to wonder, what is the point in having a child? And specifically, is the reason strong enough to justify such a huge commitment from an Objectivist perspective? (Regarding your first point. I never claimed Objectivists say you cannot have emotional attachments. Just that you are not obliged to have any emotional attachments to your children, only the responsibility to raise them).
  21. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Listen, I like debating. You don't. That's fine. You appear to have taken personal offence to the fact that I challenged your points after you challenged mine. And then you started telling me what my "role" was like some sort of authoritarian. I am here to discuss and debate. I don't want to get personal. I have paid very close attention to what you have said. Mocking me for being too wrapped up in "debate" when I've actually gone ahead and specifically addressed your comments is ridiculous. You ignored my reply and now you're attacking me. You declared you won't debate "anti-Objectivists" and you imply I'm the one too wrapped up in my own worldview. You have no idea what I've learnt.
  22. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I was hesitant in making that claim. Perhaps that was rash. The point is I assume this is a good place to challenge the philosophy and get replies from those who subscribe to it or are knowledgeable on it.
  23. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I'm not sure if all my text is appearing on your screen (no sarcasm here) but for your first point, if you carried on reading, my next sentence said "I say bizarre because in one way it is not a conception of the family at all, it is a non-acknowledgement of the family. " Have a scan of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization#Industrial_Revolution On your third point, again my next sentence was this: East Asia has even stronger conceptions of duty to family. Ever wondered why the Chinese are so obedient? Chinese culture is built on Confucianism which considers filial piety as a key virtue. "In serving his parents, a filial son reveres them in daily life; he makes them happy while he nourishes them; he takes anxious care of them in sickness; he shows great sorrow over their death that was for him; and he sacrifices to them with solemnity." - Confucius (Maybe you were just picking random sentences and not reading much else. I don't blame you! I wrote a lot)
  24. Nicky

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Does it? You've been debating away for a week or so now, and you're yet to learn a single thing. How could you? You refuse to pay attention to what anyone says, you're too wrapped up in your "debate".
  25. dream_weaver

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Did you read this in the guidelines? This website facilitates trade among those interested in Objectivism. The primary -- but not only -- form of trade will be information about Objectivism and discussion about its applications. Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. Anyone interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy may join. I'm having difficulty parsing your assertion of self-proclaimed Objectivists from those having an interest it the subject, especially when agreement with Objectivism is not a prerequisite for participation.
  26. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Not quite. I am saying the survival of the family relies on a belief in duty. I have never claimed a duty to debate. Do as you wish. Since I am talking to a community of self-proclaimed Objectivists and their arguments aren't convincing, it has reinforced my belief that there is no "way out" of this issue, that I wasn't missing something obvious. However, I believe my arguments alone are sufficient. The funny thing is I'm pretty sure Rand would be on my side on this. The founder of the philosophy evaded the family, ignored or attacked it in her work and didn't have children herself because she wanted to focus her time on being productive. (No one has replied to this point so far). All of this points to a fundamental incompatibility between the family and Objectivism and upon further inspection it turns out to be the case.
  27. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Yes, I understood this to be the Objectivist position. Rand makes it clear in The Virtue of Selfishness: "In spritual issues - (by 'spiritual' i mean: 'pertaining to man's consciousness') - the currency of exchange is different, but the principle is the same. Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man's character." I agree with your sentiments here. Human beings want to have children, generally speaking, because they believe it is what they are meant to do, that it is part of their purpose, an obligation to fulfill. It is a good that is in your own self-interest because it is in your own self-interest to be true to human nature, right? And procreating is an inherent aspect of human nature. This is your argument? If so then it stands to reason that all women, whether they want to or not, have a duty to have children because it is just a part of human nature. This is exactly the type of duty I argue is required for the family but it is incompatible with Objectivism. There is no such thing as duty to family. Only duty to principles, according to Objectivism. If it is a binding obligation, then it is not based on the trader principle. I agree with a lot of what you have said except the links to Objectivism. Rand explicity rejected the obligation to have children. Unless I am mistaken she has been quoted as saying she does not believe women are obliged to have children. The argument that it is rational to have children because it is a part of human nature and therefore in your self interest is no different to stating it is your duty to have children as a universal law. What about women like Rand, who wanted to focus on productive work instead of having children. Are you going to tell her what her own self-interest is? If I'm not hitting on your argument, please clarify for me.
  28. dream_weaver

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Jason Hunter, So in your esteem not only are human beings duty-bound to ensure the survival of family, there is a duty to engage in debate about this and presumably other subjects? Just how do 'weak replies' to any particular position serve as evidence for any other particular position?
  1. Load more activity
×