Jason Hunter

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.

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.

Everything I said was genuine. I'm at a crossroads grappling with the conflict between Objectivism and Conservatism. Objectivism is appealing partly because it provides certainty in a confusing world (much like religion). So much of it makes sense and sounds good. As much as I crave that certainty in my own worldview (so I can spread my views with confidence and conviction), there are fundamental issues I cannot ignore. I started this thread because I struggled to find much discussion on this crucial topic. I wanted to challenge Objectivists with the argument I had formulated. It is an argument which I believe is a logical conclusion from Objectivist principles. The title of the thread is a declaration, not a question. I then proceed - "my argument is as follows:". As the thread has gone on, I have become more and more convinced by my original argument not only from formulating my own responses but also from the weakness of the replies. I can only conclude Objectivists are in denial on this topic. The fact that you would never debate an anti-Objectivist is alarming. Debate serves a wonderful purpose and you are at a loss by evading it.

My first line defines the nuclear family. England is an exception to the history of nuclear families. It's not hard to see that history is drenched in notions of loyalty/duty to family. (And not just family but community and country). The phrase "blood is thicker than water", still used today, is about 800 years old. All of this Yeah, fair enough, it was a minor point. I thought it was interesting. The reasoning that the historians give is that because you were expected to move out and get your own household once you start a family, this forced these nuclear families to be more entrepreneurial and to seek out opportunities to survive. I see no difference between loyalty, duty and obligation. I have been using all three to mean the same thing. According to Objectivism, loyalty is only rational if it is to principles. And we are talking about loyalty to people. Interesting comment there about history. It sheds light on an important divide between conservatives and rationalists which is best illustrated in the debates between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine. Rationalists don't place much, if any, value on history. For them, it doesn't matter how long humans have been doing something a certain way. All of that weight of evidence in the real world is irrelevant if it doesn't conform to reason (or their reasoning). I'm not sure what proof you're after. The reason loyalty to family (and community, country) is so common is precisely because of its effectiveness for survival and growth. We have evolved to behave that way. Those that didn't behave that way died out. And phrases like blood is thicker than water are expressions of that wisdom over many generations. But this opens up a whole other can of worms... A little bit of irrational duty to family is important to a stable society because family is important to a stable society and duty is important to family. So why is duty important to family? I don't know what more I can give on that. I've explained that without duty there is no distinction between family and non-family and the desire to have children is severely reduced. Civilisation arose out of these loyalties toward circles (family, community, country). These circles formed the basic structures of society that allowed for law, order and stability. I'll have to think about how to express myself in a better way. (regarding "important to a stable individual life" - that is a separate argument). Finally, I don't completely rule out the idea that society can't survive without the family (although I'm very doubtful). My main focus is that family needs duty and Objectivists should accept that their philosophy is counter to the family. Aren't you at all concerned by Rand's avoidance of the family in her life and work? I don't know how any Objectivist can't find this extremely concerning. Pretty much everything she said and did points toward a rejection of the family.

My comment on Cicero was a minor point. The main point was whether or not Christianity has influenced the development of western civilisation. I have taken the time to research Cicero's views and read some passages from the book. He's a figure I've been planning to study indepth and based on what I've discovered so far I'm pleased to find arguments I agree with and which support my stance in this thread. It leaves me rather perplexed by your comments. You say "to Cicero, duty is nothing more than to live according to our nature". So when he says ""Not for us alone are we born; our country, our friends, have a share in us", does it not stand to reason that serving our country and our friends is staying true to our nature? In other words, it is inherent in us to be loyal to our country, community, family and that this is right and good simply because it is natural. In The Republic Cicero says: “nature has given to mankind such a compulsion to do good, and such a desire to defend the well-being of the community, that this force prevails over all the temptations of pleasure and ease.” and “I did not hesitate to brave the wildest storms and almost the very thunderbolts themselves to protect my countrymen, and, by risking my own life, to win peace and security for the rest. For our country did not give us life and nurture unconditionally, without expecting to receive in return, as it were, some convenience, providing a safe haven for our leisure and a quiet place for our relaxation. No, it reserved the right to appropriate for its own purpose the largest and most numerous portions of our loyalty, ability, and sagacity, leaving to us for our private use only what might be surplus to its needs.” If this is not an outright call to duty I don't know what is. (He even calls a loner unjust if he chooses to live isolated from society because our nature as social beings demands us to participate in social life and to contribute to strengthening the union among men). And what do you make of Cicero's categorisation of human relationships? In On Duties he argues that aside from the "tie of common humanity...., there is a nearer relation of race, nation and language which brings men into very close community of feeling." And just because we belong to the same city, this warrants a "a still more intimate bond". He continues with this closer and closer circles of initimacy right down to the family, using phrases like "we owe chiefly to these" and "bound as we are to them". He even places special significance in the blood connection - "But the union of blood, especially, binds men in mutual kindness and affection." All of this supports my position in this thread. (And it's easy to see why Conservatives and the Catholic church celebrate Cicero). Humans have always behaved in a specific way which is counter to Objectivism.

Duty to your family members. To help them, to be there for them, to give them another chance purely because they are blood (or have spent a long time with the family). This behavior appears to be inherent in humans and central to the family in reality. Feel free to read through my replies to others in this thread.. At this point I have thoroughly expanded on my position with several lengthy replies.

My "role" is to put forward my views on what you said. That's how a debate works. Sometimes questions are involved and other times there are objections to statements. And for the record, I never asked you a question. You objected to my claim that Objectivists don't distinguish between family and friends by putting forward a definition of your own. I found your definition to be murky and unclear, like bubble wrapping a hard object. My translation was an attempt to plainly state what you were saying. I assumed you would point out where you disagreed, if you do disagree. Isn't it true that your definition is simply saying that one is defined as family if they pass a certain bar of value gained? And that friend, family, stranger etc are categorised by the level of value you gain from them? I cannot think of another way to interpret it without betraying Objectivist principles. You sum up by saying that "once the relationship reaches the stage" (passes the bar for value gained?) to be considered family, then the relationship is considered to be an expectation of a lifetime commitment. This is the essence of family you claim. This too is murky. The expectation of a lifetime commitment sounds like loyalty. But it can't be loyalty, according to Objectivism, unless it is loyalty to one's principles. Furthermore, if the family is defined as only those people who you expect to commit to for a lifetime, and that this expectation can only come about (and be retracted) via the evaluation of that person's values, then what of the human race who so happen to be divided among households connected by blood and define themselves as family based on this blood connection? Your definition does not recognise these groupings. It dramatically reassorts them purely based on values. I am interested in any objections you have, of course. Hang on, are you saying there is inherent value in biological connection? That would be against Objectivism. I don't agree they are emotionally bound according to Objectivism. They only have a responsibility to raise the child, nothing more nothing less. They have no obligation to love them or feel any emotional attachment. (Naturally of course they do because human nature is counter to Objectivism). Regardless of that, you have stressed that parents *choose* to have children; once again focusing on the voluntary aspect of families. In my last reply I said: "This completely ignores the fact that in reality one is born into families with parents and siblings they have no choice over. And this is the true starting point of the family because we must all be born into one before we can create one voluntarily. According to Objectivism, those members you happen to grow up with must be judged exclusively on their values. If they do not pass the bar (share enough core values etc), they are not family." Why choose to have them in the first place? The highest good is productive work. Raising a child seems utterly pointless and a waste of time and money.

I know what you mean, a nuclear family defined as only immediate family; Mother, Father and Children. I was wrong to use the term the first time which is probably causing the confusion. My apologies. In England, the nuclear family has a far longer history than the rest of western society. You were expected to move out the house once getting married and having children. It's an interesting area to explore as this location was also the birthplace of the industrial revolution and the leader of modern civilisation. Even though everywhere else had the extended family for most of history, duty was still a central component. The duty to look after the grandparents etc. This is a peculiar line of reasoning. If people subscribed to duty based ethics, their behavior is inevitably going to reflect that. Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it. But why rely on this theoretical premise when we have the whole of history which you seem to be ignoring. (I provide examples at the end). You've already agreed with me that family is "very important" in society in your previous reply. I argue that since duty is inherent in the family, an Objectivist conception of the family is a threat to the survival of the family since it rejects duty. If you dispute that duty is inherent in the family, that's one thing. But to dispute that throughout history some sense of irrational duty to the family (usually including the state or God) has been the norm and that civilisation developed with this core thread is a defenceless position. You could say they all had it wrong. I simply argue that this overwhelming evidence of the way in which human beings have always behaved strongly indicates it is an inherent attribute in human nature. Therefore, Objectivists attempting to implement their bizarre conception of the family is doomed to fail. 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. Of course, that was part of my considerations. But you need to be more specific. It's easy to gain some value off lots of people. But having very good and rational reasons to love your family is an entirely different matter. Or at least to value them very highly based purely on the trader principle. But as the Atlas Society admits, the chances of that happening is low since we don't choose our siblings and parents. Hence my argument that the family would take a serious hit. I am focusing on Christianity because it is the foundation of western civilisation. 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 But back to Christianity and Rome. Cicero, one of the most revered figures of the ancient world, wrote a three part treatise "On Duties" 44 years Before Christ and while I haven't read it and only skimmed through it, he seems to be strongly supporting duty to country and family - "Not for us alone are we born; our country, our friends, have a share in us". The text was heralded by the Catholic Church and was a moral authority in the middle ages. Rome of course played a crucial role in western civilisation. But to dismiss the role of Christianity is to deny reality. Europe was a backward hellhole after the fall of the western Roman Empire. Christianity is deeply ingrained in the development of the west from then onward. It was the uniting force on the continent and established law and order. The cultural influence is huge. I've already written a lot so I won't expand on that unless you insist. But the key take away is that duty is deeply ingrained in Christianity (the duty to have children for example) which is deeply ingrained in the development of western civilisation.

Interesting. I didn't realise it was so recent for America. It is thought to have been the norm in England for hundreds of years and possibly helps explain why the industrial revolution happened here, among other reasons. See the quote after next. I agree. Blood is not the inherent factor in family. It is the irrational loyalty that is derived from it. This irrational loyalty (or duty) can be attained by non-blood members like adopted babies or long term family friends, partly because history has an inherent value for most people. (who doesn't get sentimental about old memories with friends who have completely different values today?). I'm glad we agree family is very important but you dismiss Objectivism's threat to the family by rejecting the claim that duty is important to the concept of family. In the previous quote you claimed it doesn't really matter historically or morally. Yet here you agree that "historically, most concepts of family have been duty based". (And this is hardly a groundbreaking observation, most would agree). This already is strong evidence to place doubt in the mind of the Objectivist that non-duty based family is applicable in reality. But further, the exceptions you raise are examples that put the city-state or nation first. But it doesn't matter. I am not claiming absolute loyalty to the family. I only argue that the family requires some level of irrational duty/loyalty/obligation. This is quite an outrageous claim and in contradiction to your previous comment. The family has been central to Christian civilisation with a very large dose of duty. I think Objectivists need to face up to the fact the family is incompatible with the philosophy and to focus on imagining how a society could run without it. With developments in bio-engineering, I don't discount the possibility of a radically different future for new humans entering the world. I don't think Rand not having children was a personal preference. It was the logical conclusion of her philosophy that values productive work as the highest good. She completely ignored the family in her own life and in her work. This should be huge alarm bells for students of Objectivism. I am focusing my energy on the topics she ignored/evaded.

Your definition translates as: All human relationships are based on the trader principle and those relationships that have the greatest beneficial trade are defined as family. If the value gained decreases by X then the relationship is defined as friend. If it decreases further then it is merely an acquaintance. Finally, zero value gained is a stranger or an enemy. This completely ignores the fact that in reality one is born into families with parents and siblings they have no choice over. And this is the true starting point of the family because we must all be born into one before we can create one voluntarily. But this is of no relevance to an Objectivist. You ignored it yourself, choosing the voluntary starting point. According to Objectivism, those members you happen to grow up with must be judged exclusively on their values. If they do not pass the bar (share enough core values etc), they are not family. This is like a dagger through the heart of the family. It essentially demands the breakup of millions of families because “it would be a rare coincidence if we could truly love each member of our family for who they are. The likelihood of being born surrounded entirely by people with whom we share core values is not very high.” (The Atlas Society). From the moment you are born the family is not recognised, until you have decided that their values warrant such a description. You merely awake inside the home of strangers who might as well have adopted you. Strangers who have committed to raising you but not necessarily loving you, for love relies on value evaluation. If the value of the job in Tokyo outweighs the value of the person, the decision is a simple one irrespective of the extent to which the other person values you. This means that your "commitment not to break a bond" is merely a commitment to choose what you value most. It is true that non-blood members can enter the inner circle of the family, whether it be an adopted child, a step parent or a family friend. But in doing so they enter the realm of irrational loyalty (with limits). That is the difference between family and non-family. A difference which is automatically derived from blood. This is just the way human beings behave. Regarding arranged marriages, it crosses my personal limit. I do think the wisdom and advice of parents has value regarding a son or daughter's spouse and one should be brought up to place value in that advice, I think ultimately the choice must be with the daughter. I support a large dose of individual freedom but societal pressures and constraints have strong arguments. The right to pursue happiness is the result of the long evolving tradition of English law.

Childbirth out of wedlock and single parent households have skyrocketed over the past few decades since the introduction of the welfare state. The claim that the traditional nuclear family is a vital social institution to a healthy society has ample evidence to back it up. Single parent households are far more likely to raise children with behavioral problems, criminal behavior, poor performance in school, early pregnancies etc. The knock on effect reverberates throughout society. I'm sure you can imagine the number of different ways children brought up like this affect other people in society. The 19th century was an incredibly stable time in the UK and US and it was also arguably the heyday of the traditional nuclear family. Those notions of family you speak of aren't notions of family at all. They are just notions of human relationships in general. Much like there are no women's rights or gay rights, only individual rights. There are no family relationships as distinct from non-family relationships, just human relationships. How would you define the family as distinct from non-family? You cannot use blood as this has no meaning to an Objectivist in human relationships. If you cannot come up with an answer that provides family relationships with a definition unique only to families, you surely must concede Objectivism is essentially anti-family because it does not recognise it as distinct from non-family. This objection is the most surprising for me. I am confident if Rand were here today she would agree that duty/obligation has been a central tenet in family life throughout history, only she would argue that they all had it wrong because they had the wrong premises. She makes similar declarations about other things that basically all past generations got wrong. You've used some extreme examples there but all of them would have felt the duty to have children and to protect them and sacrifice themselves for them. Of course, in special circumstances previous societies believed everyone was expendable for a greater good. But special irrational loyalty to the family (with limits) has always been the norm. I am curious why Objectivists would even want to have children. It is a massive investment and a huge drain on your time and resources. The highest good is living a productive life. Why take all that time away from being productive to raise children? Rand certainly agreed. And these are children who you cannot have any attachment to in a genetic sense. So it would be like raising an adopted baby.

I am not sure I fully understand your definition but i don't see how it describes the family as distinct from non-family groups? The reason I am defining the family as inherently duty laden is because the evidence points so strongly in that direction. In pracitcally every age and society we can observe the same thing: Indivudals have greater loyalty toward family members than they do to non-family members. We find this to be the case among different peoples with remarkable consistency. How could this be the case unless blood gives family an automatic special status? This is also supported by the multitude of sayings passed down the ages like "blood is thicker than water", "family first" etc. Since Objectivism rejects this special status, one must accept that Objectivism is anti-family. The next stage to consider is whether a society can flourish or even survive without the family. I am very doubtful but I don't completely rule it out. Youve got to admit it's odd that Rand avoided the family in her work if it wasn't a problematic issue. She avoided the reproductive organs too, unless it was about sex. She talks about non conscious organisms like animals and cells as having their own life as the highest value and survival as the sole purpose but she ignores the reproductive nature of animals and cells. Cells particularly are literally designed to reproduce. That is their purpose. There are some animals and insects that intentionally bring on their death in the name of reproduction. A certain male spider, after impregnating the female, helps to impale itself on the female's pincer so that the female can eat it to gain the needed energy. Rand doesn't have much to say on the duty to reproduce, or have I missed it in some of her work?

Exactly, the behavior has always existed which reinforces my concern that humans are simply wired to behave this way and attempting to drastically change that is futile. I can't explain it at the moment. Possibly I never will be able to. I don't claim that duty is necessarily justified. I am uneasy about the argument that whatever is good for the species as a whole is justified. Jordan Peterson appeals to this type of reasoning. I am deeply attracted to the individualistic philosophy. But I am just concerned about what is applicable in reality. Intellectuals have a long history of coming up with theories about human nature and the world and after putting it into practice it has very negative consequences. Since duty does appear to be inherent in family, the Objectivist conception of human relationships is incompatible with family and is therefore anti-family and doomed to fail. I think it would just lead to hypocritical Objectivists who do in fact place extra value on their family members due to blood or Objectivists actually sticking to the proper principles and therefore destroying the family and consequently society as it is a vital social institution. But i doubt the latter would ever happen unless it was a very small society because most humans will never subscribe to such a conception of human relationships. I agree that it doesn't lead to the same connectivity. I argued that there is no distinction between family and non-family members other than the strength or weakness of the values of those members. So there would of course be a wide variance in relationships depending on the values. But it would also mean the destruction of the family since duty/obligation is required as the driving force for unity.

I see what you're saying. You're equating turbulence with the actual relationships among the family members themselves. I am equating turbulence with the movement of members in and out of groups. So with family, the group is more stable than a friendship group in the sense that the members remain members more often than in friendship groups, where members are more likely to leave or the group disperses completely. Because humans are wired in such a way as to create "circles" of human relationships so to speak, with family as the inner most stable circle, friends as the next then acquaintances, community, city, nation, the stability of these circles leads to stable societies as a whole with low crime rates etc. This is the conservative argument anyway, as far as I understand it. You seem to be saying that the negative aspect caused by dealing with family members you are obliged to deal with outweighs any positive aspect of families that stick together. But i agree there is a line where you should leave a toxic relationship even if it is family. The point is that societies where the family has broken down has led to very negative consequences for society. The impact of the welfare state on the family and the consequences make for a powerful argument in support of this. The "extra effort" you speak of is still not as powerful as the extra effort derived from blood duty as is shown by the fact that families generally stick together more often than friendship groups.

It won't let me quote each individual paragraph when i press enter so i'll just reply to the whole thing. YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH I understand that Objectvists recongise the genetic fact of family. My quarrel is that Objectivists attach no meaning to this fact. Regarding the survival of the species, I quoted the Objectivist from the article that admits the family is a vital social institution. Would you agree? The 19th century is often hailed as a time of great progress and peace due to capitalism and while this is true it is also worth noting that this was also a time with a very strong family unit. Stable families make for stable societies (stable progression, not stagnant). The breakdown of the family since the mid 20th century due to the welfare state has had all sorts of negative consequences including sharply rising crime rates. This impact has been extensively covered by conservative writers like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. In a similar way, Objectivism threatens to breakdown the family. A society that embraces Objecvtisim and truly stuck to its principles would see not only an increase in the dispersal of families in current existence (since families would have less reason to stick together) but also dramatically reducing the incentive to create families at all. (The entire species would be under threat only if the whole species embraced Objectivism but what is most likely is the society that embraces Objectivism would die out or be overwhelmed by a rival society with a strong family unit and acceptance of duty to family, community and nation). YOUR SECOND PARAGRAPH You seem to make a serious error. The claim that Objectivists can place value in a human relationship purely based on the long history of that relationship is false. The length of a relationship is of absolutely no relevance to an Objectivist, only the values of the person. I had considered this too, hoping it could be a way around this family issue, as you have tried to do. I had hoped that since most familial relationships have a long history - such is the time it takes to grow from a baby to an adult - this would act as the "glue" to hold families together. But the response to this is two fold. Firstly, as stated, the Objectivist cannot apply value to this or consider it a "unique" value as you describe it. Secondly, the history argument is not strong enough on its own without blood derived duty attached to it. After all, how common is it for old school friends who grew up together to lose contact? Very common indeed. Don't get me wrong though. I agree that the history argument holds weight and is a part of human nature. I certainly feel an extra urge to reconnect with old school friends purely because of that shared history. I am merely saying an Objectivist cannot appeal to this and still be an Objectivist. YOUR THIRD PARAGRAPH You dismiss the claim that the incentive to have children would be reduced without the obligation to pass on the genes by denouncing the morality of such a stance. But the question of whether it would or would not reduce the incentive to have children is not a moral question. I would be surprised if you would deny that the sense of duty in having children is by far the largest reason for why humans have done and still do have children. If you were to ask a random stranger why they had children, you may get responses like "carrying on the family name" "it's what we're supposed to do" "we're wired that way" "to carry on the family tradition" "to pass on the business and keep it in the family" etc. It all revolves around an appeal to continuity from generation to generation. Hence, it is clear that in rejecting this duty, as Rand did, that desire to have children would be reduced dramatically for the society as a whole. YOUR FOURTH PARAGRAPH My evidence is the whole of history. The explanation is the Adam Smith quote in my original post. YOUR FIFTH PARAGRAPH I have explained that Objectivism's conception of the family (or lack of) is counter to how humans actually behave. Whether one can rationally justify this behaviour is a separate issue. But what use is rational justification if it leads to death?

I agree with the Objectivist position on this. I don't know where the line should be. It is an impossible question as far as I understand. What I'm highlighting is not the why but the what. What is the crucial component of the family that separates it from other groups? What is the component that binds families, allowing them to remain united more than other groups? It is duty. Duty to pass on the genes, duty to be loyal (somewhat) to family members. To go the extra mile for family etc. But those mutually beneficial bonds are completely inseparable from any bonds one can form with friends. In other words, Objectivists simply don't recognise the family. This is the consequence of rejecting an inherent bond based on blood.

We are in spirit inseparable? This sounds like an inherent value over and above the trader principle? To be an Objectivist, you must concede that you love your family only for the values that they hold and that this could change at any time. If you have children, you would have to explain to them that you cannot say "I'll always love you" like the other parents do to their kids. You don't have to call it duty but I find it hard to believe that Objectivsts with family really don't place any extra value on their family purely because they are family. Don't you think it is simply unsustainable if your *only* link to your family is merely how much you like or dislike their values?

I'm not necessarily asking why an Objectivist doesn't follow their automatic duty. I'm claiming that in resisting this automatic duty, an Objectivist is fundamentally anti-family because this duty is the defining characteristic of family. What else separates the family from any other group other than the obligations most people accept are derived from the blood connection? In defining human relationships as exclusively based on the trader principle, Objectvism recognises no difference between family and friends other than the physical connection but this has no value and therefore Objectivists are blind to family. Family (as distinct from 'group of friends') has no meaning to a true Objectivist. Now whether this duty can be rationally justified is another matter. But my argument is that this duty has always been a fundemantal aspect of the development of the species and the sustainability of the family, generation to generation. I understand that Objectivists claim there are no obligations (because they cannot be rationally justified). I am questioning this approach by referring to the behavior of human beings in reality and the long history and development of our species. But when Rand said we shouldn't love everyone equally she meant that because human relationships are based on values, one cannot love a stranger because one is ignorant of their values. However, for those people that one is aware of their values, there is no distinction between family and non-family other than the strength or weakness of the values themselves. This also replies to the first sentence in the above paragraph. By definition, Objectivism flattens family connections by removing any special status or inherent value.

Hi this is my first post. I've recently read Atlas Shrugged, Why Businessmen need philosophy and The Virtue of Selfishness. I've also read many parts of the lexicon and scanned forums etc. If my understanding of Objectivism is wrong please correct me. I'd like to hear responses to this issue. I am seriously struggling to get past some fundamental problems. Salon released an article a few years ago claiming Objectivism is anti-family and the Atlas Society released an article in response which I found to be rather weak. (https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/5440-objectivism-is-not-anti-family). I've struggled to find many articles dealing with this issue and Rand herself didn't have a whole lot to say other than criticising duty to family members. My argument is as follows: Objectivism is fundamentally anti-family because it rejects the very essence of the family; duty/obligation. By relegating the family to the same plane as any other relationship among individuals (based on the trader principle), the family is effectively eradicated. Once the children reach adulthood, there is no distinction between family and a group of friends. As is often the case with friendship groups, they disperse over time as its members respond to changing conditions in their own lives. As their interests change, friends often lose the values they once held in common and naturally seek different avenues, forming new bonds and new friendship groups. Without the traditional special status of family members (whereby blood means automatic obligation), the family is just as vulnerable to this turbulence among friendship groups. Or at the very least, significantly more vulnerable than it currently is. If one were to practice Objectivism, he must measure his relationships to family members in the same way he would with any other individual; purely by the values being traded. But this conception of the family flies in the face of the actual family as it exists in reality. In the Atlas response, the writer admits that the "family is a vital institution" and is a "natural part of our propogation as a species" but this natural part also includes the sense of obligation to our family members whether it can be rationally justified or not. The writer also deceives the ignorant reader by claiming that the Objectivist stance is merely a rejection of obligation toward extremes, like an "abusive parent". He asks the reader; "is it disdainful to say that this [the family] doesn't imply a blanket, open-ended, out-of-context obligation?". Such intellectual cowardice on display here. The Objectivist stance is not merely a rejection of blanket obligation. It is a rejection of any obligation whatsoever. The writer does not address this most important point. Most conservatives also reject blanket obligation. The limit of that toleration toward negative family members varies among individuals and cannot be defined. (talking about toleration, where is the comment section on that article?) The crux of the issue is that in typical situations where one would usually cut ties with a friend, one would make an extra effort to stay connected purely because that person is a family member. That extra push is crucial to the survival of the family and by extension the species. When considering the Objectivist conception of the family in practice, one struggles to imagine a lasting society. Families would have little reason to stay together. The greatest unifying force is and has always been duty. Moreover, the incentive to have children in the first place would also be greatly diminished by eradicating the duty to pass on the genes or carry on the family name. It is telling that Rand spent little time addressing the family and in her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, the main characters don't have children. Even Rand herself abstained from having children. Is it not obvious to Objectivists that human beings have and always will place greater irrational obligation on their most inner circle starting with the family, extending out to the community and the nation state? And that this process of human relationships is deeply interwoven in the process of survival of our species which has evolved over millions of years? i'll leave you with a quote from Adam Smith; "We do not love our country merely as part of the great society of mankind - we love it for its own sake. That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principal attention of each individual to that particular portion of it which is most within the sphere of both his abilities and understanding." (The Theory of Modern Sentiments, p.375). I am strongly attracted to the Objectivist concept of indivdual rights and I wish I could subscribe to the philosophy in full (no half measures) but the somewhat sobering arguments of conservatism are a real barrier.