What should be done for a rights-violated child?

[Red Goblin]

Where in the world did you get that idea? What other un-asked for duties do we have? Does that obligation  trump other duties that we have actually taken on voluntarily?

That particular idea happens to be the legal framework in England for protecting children from people that abuse them. However if there was no government then I am trying to understand who would do this. I have just finished reading Atlas Shrugged and where on one hand I find it extremely thought provoking I have many unanswered questions.

For example you discover that a child who lives nearby is being physically and sexually abused by a member of his/her family. Now you know that this is happening don't you think that you have a moral duty to stop this abuse by telling the police. If the police investigated and ended up removing the child they would have to either place the child somewhere else or ensure that the abuser was no longer living in the home. Who would do this as someone might have to visit this family to ensure that the child was not in further danger for sometime. A private agency could do this but it would have to be based on our charity. In fact prior to the current legal framework in the UK there were charities. Unfortunately they have and continue to be less effective at protecting children. They tend to have the most expensive offices (where most of the charity money goes it seems) and generally speaking the least able staff at doing the job properly, in my experience.

I am also struggling on Rand's denial of our emotions as I see that this is very much what makes us human. If we were completely rational then we would be like Mr Spock (star trek) Of course we need to be able to control our emotions but we have these feelings to enable us to survive. But I'll find another discussion somewhere in the forum to discuss that one.

[DavidOdden]

For example you discover that a child who lives nearby is being physically and sexually abused by a member of his/her family. Now you know that this is happening don't you think that you have a moral duty to stop this abuse by telling the police.

Sure, but that's a separate issue which you didn't raise before. If you can point me to some (authoritative) document in English law that asserts a universal obligation on all citizens to provide an good upbringing for children, I'd appreciate seeing some substance to the claim. I suppose, though, it might be a new imposition under EU rules, but still I want to see the basis for your claim.

If you would rather restrict your claim to there specifically being an obligation to turn child molesters over to the law, that is a very different claim. It's wrong, but not egregiously wrong. There are two things that make it wrong. First, there is no rational basis for restricting that obligation (if it existed) to just crimes against children. Second, it is wrong because it asserts an altruistic categorial imperative, that your own life must be sacrificed for the sake of another, which implies that you are a mere farm animal existing only for the comfort and safety of others. Any moral obligation ends at the point of stopping the crime, and exists only as long as doing so is not self-sacrificial. But excluding self-sacrificial acts, it would indeed be immoral to leave violations of the rights of others unchecked and unchallenged. This is a vastly more restricted "duty". There is a separate issue regarding the concept "duty", whether you have a "duty" to act according to morality. This is a duty which should not be enforced by law, unlike contractual obligations.

I am also struggling on Rand's denial of our emotions as I see that this is very much what makes us human.

I think you are quite confused about Rand on emotion, but this will presumably sort itself out once you read more of her works. Rand does not deny emotion -- obviously humans have emotions. But emotions are not a source of knowledge, and they are not reason. Man's natural means of survival is reason.

[Inspector]

For example you discover that a child who lives nearby is being physically and sexually abused by a member of his/her family. Now you know that this is happening don't you think that you have a moral duty to stop this abuse by telling the police.

I think David covered this pretty well. I would agree with him that it would be a moral obligation to inform the police. There is a big difference between this and being obligated to provide for the care of the child through its lifetime. Ayn Rand addresses this issue in The Ethics of Emergencies, which is something you will want to read eventually (once you understand her regular ethics, so you will know what she is talking about).

I am also struggling on Rand's denial of our emotions as I see that this is very much what makes us human.

Actually, you're mistaken about this. Ayn Rand was not an advocate of denying emotions, just of putting them in their proper place. You've read Atlas Shrugged; I will ask you: did her characters experience emotions? Were they stoic or were they passionate?

I see that you're already intrigued by the ideas of Ayn Rand; I can tell you that you're a little confused right now about what exactly she meant by some of them. You should reasearch her non-fiction and you will find that your objections are simply misunderstandings and have been addressed. Good luck.

[Red Goblin]

I disagree that to be altruistic means that you are sacrificing yourself for another. If as a wealthy man I choose and in fact feel happier for doing so, make another persons suffering slightly less then how is this sacrifice? In a civilised society to ensure that children; severely disabled adults; the mentally ill...etc have a very basic existence would hardly make us mere farm animals.

[DavidOdden]

I disagree that to be altruistic means that you are sacrificing yourself for another.

Well, you're standing on quicksand then, because that is definitionally what altruism is. You are perfectly free to engage in charity, if you desire. You have absolutely no right to force me to engage in "charity at gunpoint".

The Children Act 1989 s17 states that local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.

This is a different claim from what you originally said. That act refers to local authorities, whereas you first claimed that this is the duty of us all. I know better than to assume that the UK doesn't have a thoroughgoing system of nanny-state acts that guarantee manna on demand (or after a reasonable waiting period of, say, 4 years).

In the absence of a local authority in a free society, surely we would have to ensure that children were protected and received basic care if their parents were unable to.

No, we would not have to. It would be nice if there were charitable agencies who were willing to help people when they face emergencies, but that has to be voluntary and funded privately. Parents remain responsible for their children: they do have a legal and enforceable obligation. Idiots who are unwilling to accept their responsibility should not breed.

[Red Goblin]

My definition that I have found (Collins New English Dictionary) states "altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others". Nothing about sacrifice!

[DavidOdden]

My definition that I have found (Collins New English Dictionary) states "altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others". Nothing about sacrifice!

You might try reading Virtue of Selfishness (introduction): "Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil" and p. 37 "altruism, the ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake...".

[Inspector]

My definition that I have found (Collins New English Dictionary) states "altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others". Nothing about sacrifice!

You may want to examine what it means to be "unselfish." Suppose that you were 100% abjectly and totally unselfish. That would necessarily involve a life of sacrifice. Think about it. Or better yet, pick up the title David mentioned and read about it.

[RationalBiker]

However if there was no government then I am trying to understand who would do this.

And....

In the absence of a local authority in a free society,

I think you misunderstand something about Objectivism, which I assume is because of your limited reading so far. Ayn Rand did not advocate a total absence of government. What she advocated was a government limited to the protection of individual rights based on objective law.

The government should exist to protect the right to life, but not to PROVIDE for that life. I should be able to go about in society reasonably free from other people using force against me such that I can work, play and live life in general. But it is still my responsibility to get a job, work that job, put food on my table, provide for MY children, etc. etc. It is not the government's job to do any of those things on any level for me or anyone else, but merely attempt to provide an environment in which we can do those things for ourselves.

It should not exist to take anything from me, to give to someone else, simply because someone else has a need. Another person's need, child or otherwise, creates no obligation on me, save for those mentioned previously instances about helping to stop force being used against someone. And even that can be traced back to a selfish motivation. I don't want to live in a place that apathetically allows force to be used against anyone and everyone.