Jason Hunter
-
Posts
45 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Jason Hunter
-
-
3 hours ago, intrinsicist said:
And to be fair, they are not espousing the most shallow of conceptions of self-interest, this isn't merely about some material gain or non-material advantage like social status, it goes deeper than merely some actual advantage conferred to you. There is an element here, as in Rand, of the love of virtue, as something beautiful and valuable for its own sake. And so it's in your interests to maintain relationships with such virtuous people even in the absence of any specific or material advantage they bring to the table. Virtuous people are worth keeping a relationship with for the sake of their virtue alone.
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."
3 hours ago, intrinsicist said:Family in general, and let's take marriage in particular, provides something deeply satisfying to life. There's a sense of the relationship being meaningful, that it's right, that it's somehow meant to be this way. It's a feeling deeper than happiness - marriage, like having children, may not confer any particular greater sense of "happiness" in any shallow sense of day to day hardships and pleasures - but it feels real, it feels true, like you're doing what you're meant to be doing, and it confers a sense of self-esteem that goes along with being on the right track in life, and accomplishing something meaningful.
This is a feeling that comes from a very deep thought about human nature, and what it means to be human, about what we even are as people, and what is good for such human beings.
Think of it in these terms: human beings are a sexually reproducing species. This entire system of values - the masculine man and feminine woman having a relationship and children - it's obviously a very deep and important part of human nature. As a human being you're an animal - a member of a sexually reproducing species - and your body, your innate pleasures, everything about your metaphysical nature has been built according to this deeply fundamental characteristic of sex (maybe nothing is more fundamental to your nature except life).
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.
3 hours ago, intrinsicist said:What I'm trying to communicate here is that there is a metaphysical truth about human nature - something that cannot be changed and must be accepted. This truth is that human beings come in two flavors: male and female, and that they are designed as independent parts of a married whole; alone they are incomplete and together they complete each other, and that this combination is still yet incomplete, and is consummated and thus even further completed through procreation.
3 hours ago, intrinsicist said:Family is an end in itself. Seeking the completion of family is a good that is in your own self-interest, and separation from family is thereby a lacking which goes against your self-interest.
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.
3 hours ago, intrinsicist said:It's not a free-for-all trade of values, even spiritual values like the appreciation of virtue in itself. The value of the relationship doesn't depend primarily on these things, and so the obligation to family - guided by your own self-interest - is not contingent on such things.
3 hours ago, intrinsicist said:What emerges from this basic metaphysical truth is a duty to your family - much like the duty to appreciate a man's virtues, or your obligation to fulfill your side of a contract. It's a categorical commitment, not a contingent one. Any violation of a contract is an injustice, any rejection of a man's virtue is an injustice. These are not "if I feel like it" case by case issues, these are black an white matters of justice and morality, of right and wrong.
There is no such thing as duty to family. Only duty to principles, according to Objectivism.
3 hours ago, intrinsicist said:But it does mean that you have a binding obligation to your family and that your values and your self-interest are inextricably tied up in these bonds.
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.
-
18 hours ago, Nicky said:
My mistake. I didn't realize we were having a debate. I'm not looking for a debate. I thought you were here to learn about Objectivism, and trying to clear up a perceived inconsistency.
I would never participate in a debate against an anti-Objectivist. It's a silly exercise, and a total waste of time.
By the way, please go back and re-read your very first paragraph in this thread...because, if your true purpose here is to debate Objectivists, that paragraph is a total lie.
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.
-
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:
No. I said it before. There is no such thing as the nuclear family before the 20th century. Not in England, not in America, not in the entire world. (Or just be a little more specific, so I know exactly what you're talking about, because nuclear family is a pretty vague term in this conversation so far)
My first line defines the nuclear family. England is an exception to the history of nuclear families.
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:It's not that weird to think that people may claim that something is important, but if we analyze the phenomenon, different factors were at work more so. In other words, even if people might claim that something is important, we might find that some unacknowledged aspect of family is the part that actually mattered for the stability of one's life and even the development of society.
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
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:
For example, you're saying that it's interesting that a specific English notion of family correlated with the Industrial Revolution. Okay, fine, maybe there's a causal relation. You still haven't demonstrated that we should think that duty to family is what contributed to 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.
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:It's a very simple idea I'm arguing against. It's improper reasoning to say that a common attribute is critical to a concept. The more important attribute, a fundamental attribute, is loyalty rather than duty. I don't say that because it's common, nor do I make a historical argument that people have been doing it for a long time. When just about anyone talks about family in a normative way, they mean some type of loyalty and support to people but not necessarily love. Some may argue that duty is important, but it's not as if we require that somebody adheres to duty to any extent to say "aha! That's a family!" Historical examples are great ways to illustrate an idea and make an idea concrete, but they aren't proof.
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...
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:I really want to bring the focus down to *how* you think a little bit of irrational duty to family is important to a stable society and individual life. I know you think duty is necessary for family. I'm looking for a causal explanation, not simply "it's been around for a long time, so I guess it must be working pretty well".
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.
-
16 hours ago, 2046 said:
Rather than abusing a book you admittedly haven't read for a purpose contrary to its author, you should actually read the Cicero book. Indeed it might have well been called "The Virtue of Selfishness" and it basically refutes everything you've said.
The idea of a "duty" apart from any personal goal or end, as Craig asks, would be entirely foreign to Cicero. You might be seeing the word "duty" and assuming this is meant the same way Kant, Rawls, or modern deontological ethicists use the term, but this is anachronism. The Latin word "officiis" means "obligations" or norms in the wider sense. To Cicero duty is nothing more than to live according to our nature, and that is to live a life of rationality and virtue. The virtuous development is towards man's natural end or telos which is self-perfection. To say simply that "well duty towards family, for no reason at all, is inherent in our nature" is to beg the question.
The quote you posted out of context was a simple refutation of solipsism and atomism, something believed (in both ontological and ethical forms) by the rival schools of the Academics and Epicureans, and something Rand could just as well agree with as any. We have other-oriented needs and capacities. We are the social animal (Rand says the contractual animal.) Of course, and no one said otherwise. The accusations that man is somehow self-sufficient and can flourish apart from any social community has always been an authoritarian strawman.
Just what forms, and on what conditions, are these social aspects to be sought? The social aspects of man, in the tradition of Cicero, are based on our own perfection of our natures, and sought as goods towards that end. They are goods that are open-ended and essentially cosmopolitan. Or are they to be static, fixed, and provincial? To understand Cicero would indeed disabuse you of much of the paradigm you are in.
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.
-
On 10/10/2018 at 3:54 PM, Craig24 said:
Duty to whom? To do what? I'm confused. Ayn Rand defines duty as: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.
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.
-
4 hours ago, Nicky said:
My definition was in English. You asked a question, I answered. Now your role isn't to "translate" my answer, it's to understand it. Feel free to ask for clarifications, if what I wrote isn't clear enough.
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.
4 hours ago, Nicky said:Since you raised the issue of the parent-child relationship, I'm gonna assume you are interested in what I think about it. I think it's a unique relationship, substantively different from other family bonds. The difference is that there's a biological (metaphysical) bond that doesn't exist in adult relationships.
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.
4 hours ago, Nicky said:But there still isn't any duty involved. It's still a commitment based relationship: the parents CHOOSE to commit to raising a child. There's no duty to make that commitment, it's fine to not have children.
I ignored the parent-child relationship for two reasons:
1. because Objectivists raise their children to adulthood, same as everybody else
2. because the parent-child bond in homo sapiens isn't a matter of tradition, it's first and foremost a matter of biology: human children, like most mammal offspring, are helpless without nurture from their parents, and parents are emotionally bound to their children.
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."
4 hours ago, Nicky said:So you don't need tradition or "duty" to justify raising your children. It is beyond obvious that the only two rationally selfish courses of action are to either have children and care for them into adulthood, or to not have them at all.
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.
-
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:
No, I mean to say that there's no such thing as nuclear family until post-war Western society. Anything before then is something else, even if it might resemble the nuclear family of the 20th century. I think you're using the term and you don't know what it means, or trying to use a historically nuanced version of the concept I'm not familiar with.
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.
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:Historically people may have thought that duty is important, even if the causal patterns of culture did not in fact have anything to do with duty.
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).
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:You haven't presented evidence. You presented evidence about families in general, but didn't explicitly or successfully lind that to requiring duty in a way that benefits society, individuals, or anything for that matter. I mean, I don't think I need to go over with you all the reasons that Rand argued that duty is bad, so all I want to know is how the bad parts about duty go away when we start to talk about it in the context of family.
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.
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:I think you also miss how although even of the people who put some amount of duty into family may also have very good and rational reasons to value those people anyway.
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.
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:would argue that it's not Christian values at all that helped build Western society, but Roman values that preceded the Christian era of Rome.
So, yes, I don't think any of us would disagree that our notion of family is incompatible with Christian values. The more you talk about duty to family, the more I think you're actually trying to talk about Christian families specifically.
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.
-
On 10/9/2018 at 11:22 PM, Eiuol said:
The nuclear family is an American invention during the 1950s. Very often, family includes much more than the mother, father, and their kids (with extended family visiting once in a while). Living conditions were close quarters 200 years ago, including those who weren't blood relatives but people you choose to consider family. The nuclear family couldn't exist until technology and the economy grew to the levels after WW2. Besides, nuclear family is not synonymous with duty to family. It could include it, but it doesn't have to.
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.
On 10/9/2018 at 11:22 PM, Eiuol said:Anyway, I don't dispute the potential value of a family, my dispute is to say that duty really matters either historically or morally. Sometimes there has been duty, sometimes there hasn't been.
See the quote after next.
On 10/9/2018 at 11:22 PM, Eiuol said:Let's take the single-parent household example. You're right, growing up with exactly one parent correlates with various issues of development. On the other hand, there's nothing that says the parent must be a blood parent. For children, the issue is if they only have one adult figure. If there are family friends, extended family, school (if the kids are old enough), the community around them. If a child has consistent adults around them who are parent figures, this is fine. So, yes, family in general is very important. This doesn't demonstrate that duty is important to the concept family, or the genetic component of family important to its value.
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.
On 10/9/2018 at 11:22 PM, Eiuol said:You were making a historical argument that duty is inherent to family. So I was presenting contrary historical evidence. I think that historically, most concepts of family have been duty-based, but it isn't hard to find examples that put the city-state or nation first.
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.
On 10/9/2018 at 11:22 PM, Eiuol said:I can't think of a society that turned out well that emphasized duty to your blood family.
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.
-
On 10/9/2018 at 11:19 PM, Nicky said:
While it is true that Objectivism is a rational belief system, and therefor doesn't assign any magical qualities to "blood", that doesn't mean Objectivists (and secular people in general, this isn't really an Objectivist position) don't differentiate between friendship and family.
Secular people do form bonds that they expect to last for a lifetime...which is what the essence of "family" is, and what differentiates it from a mere friendship.
That is how families start: two non blood relatives become friends and lovers, and then, eventually, their friendship and love deepens into a bond they commit to for a lifetime. Even heterosexual, same sex friends, once their relationship reaches a stage where they expect to have that bond for the rest of their lives, start referring to their relationship as family, the kids start calling them uncle/aunt XYZ, etc., etc. And legitimately so, because that is the essence of family: the expectation of a lifetime commitment.
Only difference between the rigid, religiously prescribed (that's what conservatives mean by "traditional") view of family and the secular view is that secular people don't look at blood, and other arbitrary rules to define the concept...they look at the nature of the relationship as the essential attribute.
P.S. By "lifetime commitment" I simply mean that one commits not to break that bond without sufficient justification. A deep enough betrayal of shared values IS justification to sever a family bond. One cannot commit to stand by someone fundamentally different than the person they used to know. But they do commit to not break that bond just because a nice job opened up in Tokyo.
I would argue that a family defined this way is far more likely to provide comfort and fulfillment, than one where people stay together out of a sense of duty.
What would be more illuminating is why you agree. Because this position doesn't follow from your premise that there are traditionally defined duties one must fulfill, to have a family.
This is what the traditional definition prescribes, in most cultures through history. So what exactly is the problem with a girl fulfilling her duty, as prescribed by the traditions that define her family, irrespective of her rights or self interest?
And sure, after the Enlightenment, the "right to the pursuit of happiness" became a thing, so young people who weren't born into extremely religious families started being able to date around and choose their own spouses. But that's a very recent development, and a very radical break from a long established tradition of imposed marriages. The majority of conservatives may think that it is congruent with their religion, but is it really? Would the main character in their favorite book really be okay with it?
So why allow it? Why not go with the tried and tested tradition of arranged marriages?
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.
-
41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
The breakdown of what specifically about families?
I think you would find that the only thing we would reject around here is the notion of a traditional (blood) family being crucial to either a flourishing society or flourishing individual. We would certainly support notions of family based on meeting certain standards of virtue that even friends must meet. Blood family can be part of this, because of proximity and duration of relationships. The bond, however, would be based on the virtue of the family members.
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.
41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:I don't think so. I mean, as harsh as it is, there have been cultures that left their babies out to die if the baby didn't conform to the standards they expected. These are cultures that might put the city-state above individuals and certainly above family. If the Spartans throw a baby off a cliff, that doesn't sound very oriented towards family duty. Agememnon, in the Iliad, sacrificed his daughter so that his ships could sail to Troy. Literally killed her. He did it to please the gods and to put Greek society above his family. Whatever you might call this, duty to family was not the standard here.
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.
-
41 minutes ago, 2046 said:
Well then it seems like you've defined family as something like "that institution which is based on blood and duty," thus you've already assumed one of the ethical templates without arguing for it. That was my point in trying to sketch out the idea of the templates for you, so that you can see that you've started the game from already inside one, you're never going to to reason yourself into the other from there.
Rather than seeing it as inherently duty-laden from the get-go, I may suggest seeing it as a human good, a good which does not exist in a static, pre-set form, but only exists when maintained in particular, individualized form according to a person's virtuous development, can greatly contribute to the well being of individual person. A good that while being open-ended, individualized, and weighted, can thus fulfill deeply social and familial capacities within the human network of needs.
"Of the two qualities
which chiefly inspire regard and affection—that a thing is your own and that it is your only
one—neither can exist in such a state as [the one proposed by Plato where private property and the family are abolished.]” (Aristotle, Politics 1262b21-24).The definition of the family as the institution which is based on blood and duty is a given is it not?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?
-
6 minutes ago, 2046 said:
But this behavior existed before the paradigm of duty ethics was developed. Ancient ethics, as developed in Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, among others all take the agent-centered approach, so rather we could quiz you: why is your duty-based approach necessary to explain this behavior? Surely you can't just point to the mere existence of this behavior because we consider familial and social connections as constituent goods of a morally good human life. Justifying the template of duty is going to be the whole point, otherwise you are begging the question. Just saying "but families exist and they're inherently duty based, ergo duty is justified" is going to be circular. Once you separate the templates, you have to then see that since family can be a good in both templates, the question shifts to what justifies the template.
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.
6 minutes ago, 2046 said:On your "flattening," it doesn't follow that since shared values are the basis of connectivity to other people, that everyone has the same connectivity, as your comment ignores giving a particular weighting or balance to those connections. Indeed, under the Randian paradigm, this is the central task of ethics, to integrate all the goods and virtues into a coherent whole of life. Thus, we are not "locked in" to a flat or static form of social connectivity, nor do we have to either accept or reject the status quo of a given familial or societal connection. That is going to depend on the individual and their context and what weighting or balance makes sense for that individual's life. The "one size fits all" static connection approach meshes much more with a duty-based framework.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Eiuol said:
I think you need to demonstrate that in fact voluntary connections (we can call it voluntary family, or chosen family) are necessarily more turbulent than blood family connections. As far as I've observed, this is rarely true. You've taken for granted that blood family is necessarily stable. Your discussion here seems to be premised on the idea that a blood connection is necessarily stable and strong. If anything, you underestimate the stability when you can choose your family. When there is a duty to family if some of them are immoral people, or cool people, or unjust people, or abusive people, you perpetuate harm and suffering, problems arise.
Chosen family can include children, with just a little creativity. I don't want kids myself, but probably a few of my friends would. In theory, one of these friends could be close enough to consider family, and their children would too. This can also make it so that future blood family are connections you want to maintain out of mutual benefit and selfish value. So I don't understand why you think blood relations are necessarily the most stable.
You can claim that blood creates an automatic obligation, but it's a further claim to say that with an automatic obligation, it is more stable than a friendship group or chosen family. I'd be willing to discuss this, because I think automatic obligation is what creates turbulence. Any family, blood or otherwise, is only stable to the extent that the individuals want to be together out of mutual value exchange. The "extra effort" to stay connected is created by an obligation to principles, which in this case is obligation to support people that are extremely important to your well-being.
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.
-
9 hours ago, bluecherry said:
You are attempting to criticize the ethical component of Objectivism because you are saying it is anti-family. However, first you really need to define what constitutes family and why it would be bad to be anti-family. Family is just a genetic fact. Objectivism is not against recognizing the existence of a basic fact like like that. Objectivism also isn't looking to eradicate humanity. We supporters of the philosophy like humanity's potential even I'd say. So Objectivism isn't anti-family in the sense of wanting to end all genetic connections. It takes you a little time to get to it, but it seems what you are really concerned about is Objectivism seeming to reject treating family as a source of some particular unchosen obligations as it is currently treated in human societies. You seem to believe that these unchosen obligations are necessary to the species surviving. Why? You never answer that. You just say basically, "People try harder to keep contact with family." What makes this extra contact effort crucial to the species surviving?
Aside from that argument you needed to make, but didn't, which I thus far consequently can't address, I think a lot of people, Objectivists included, would be able to tell you though that getting a lot of knowledge, shared experiences, and just time in general with somebody increases your investment with them and makes them something of a unique value there versus if it was the same person, but you had little to no history with them. Family, in the way that most people grow up around them in practice today, has that element built into it going for it to make people willing to put more effort into preserving the relationships. This is, however, also possible to do with non-family members too, to just spend a lot of time together until you get a lot of knowledge and shared experiences, so even if one didn't have it with family, it isn't something of a form of connection that is completely lost. For most people though, it is a little harder to get that built up knowledge and experience going all the way back to people sharing in your formative years growing up with people other than relatives. So, there's some unique value in there, something many people would consider to be worth putting a little more effort into preserving. On the other hand, it's also not something anybody would be unable to function without in their lives, that history going back to childhood, especially if we're talking about people who have already had a stable time growing up and are just moving on as adults, not people who are getting bounced around chaotically throughout their childhood.
"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."
Anybody parenting for that reason, a sense of obligation and a name as opposed to liking children and teaching and stuff like that, is probably going to be a bad parent anyway who is going to raise a kid with a lot of problems. The species is in no way threatened by the loss of bad parents. We're not on the brink of extinction in numbers either to the point that we can't afford to try to be a little more selective in who we have raising kids. I dare say we'd be better off having quality parents only. (Not that I'm advocating here forcefully preventing anybody from raising kids solely due to speculation that their motives will make them harmful to the kids. I'm just talking about speculation, that if people who would have done it only or primarily out of obligation and a name chose not to have kids instead I think this would be a good thing. In practice I think we should still wait until we've got actual evidence of abuse or neglect or imminent threat of such before forcefully taking kids away.)
"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?"
Nope, it's not. Don't try to hide behind "it's obvious" as an excuse to not justify a claim as being the case and/or why something is best being a certain way. Actually go on and state your logic and evidence.
There's also the issue that you haven't clarified how any of the logical arguments in Objectivism are incorrect. You've said why you think you would want them to be incorrect, but not why they are incorrect. It's kind of like if you were to say some asteroid's path looks like it's got potential to do major damage and decided to say, "Nuh-uh, the asteroid is wrong," as if that changes anything, as if that made the asteroid cease to exist or move or not be an asteroid or whatever.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?
-
8 hours ago, Nicky said:
Objectivism only rejects the "traditional" definition of family values to the extent that they impose rights violating and/or self interest violating obligations on individuals.
A good example of a family value Oism rejects, and the most common family value in human history, in my evaluation at least, is the moral obligation of a girl to wed according to her father's wishes, and then serve and obey her husband faithfully for the rest of her life. Objectivism rejects this value both in cases when the girl is physically forced into such a marriage, as well as when she is merely psychologically pressured into it. Do you agree or disagree with that position, and why or why not?
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.
8 hours ago, Nicky said:As for the family values Objectivism doesn't reject, that would be ALL the mutually beneficial bonds within a family that there are. Every last one of them. You name 'em, Objectivism likes 'em. Only time Objectivism has an issue with "family values" is when something like what I described in the first example happens: someone is sacrificed to further the interests of the dominant member of the family.
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.
-
9 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
I am an Objectivist. I love my family, they are my highest values, as though they are my very life and being. If I lost them I would lose myself... in that way we are in spirit, inseparable.
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.
9 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:Anyone who acted obediently to Duty but in contradiction with their values, their life, their loves, to do anything for the welfare of a family member they "really" would rather not have done would have NO place telling an egoist what family is about. It surely is NOT duty.
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?
-
9 hours ago, 2046 said:
Asking a question of one template framed in terms of the other template doesn't really make sense does it? I mean asking why don't you follow your automatic duty to an Aristotelian-Randian is like asking a Kantian or Millian why he doesn't cultivate the virtue of prudence. It just doesn't make sense given the deeper structure one is working with.
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.
9 hours ago, 2046 said:Also, note that family is and can be a good, as well as other-oriented values in general, under both templates. But it doesn't make sense to question one's integration of that good in particular form according to the opposite framework. In a duty-based framework it doesn't make sense to say "having close family relationships is good for you" anymore than a flourishing approach "you have to uphold your familial obligations." There are no obligations full stop, in this approach. Thus, if you're in a toxic familial situation, you might need to distance yourself for your own good, or if your actions are causing strain or tension, you might need to change course to fix it. Do we not tell people all the time, "I hope she's not still with him, he was so bad for her" or "did you patch things up with your father" or "my birth father is a dirt bag, thank God my mother left him," etc.
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.
9 hours ago, 2046 said:Now you say well the Randian framework devalues family connections by "flattening" so to speak, everyone out, but why need this be the case? You didn't really specify why that would have to be. It seems rather opposite, under the template of duty, I have no basis for giving a particular greater weighting or balance to the value of someone as a family member than a stranger. Indeed the typical example of Kant having trouble explaining why I shouldn't lie to save someone dear to me, or Mike Wallace's interview with Rand, when he was utterly shocked when Rand denied that we should love everyone in existence equally. Deontological theorists usually have to twist themselves into pretzels to explain how I can value my family more than just some stranger I've never met. Indeed the Marxists lament that under capitalism I can have a brief interaction with someone only on the basis of trade and never really get to know them, and place greater emphasis on my personal friends and rather than the whole world community.
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.
The family cannot survive without duty.
in Ethics
Posted
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.