What about the children?

[ctrl y]

Rand's ethics, as I understand it, begins with the idea that man ought to do what is most beneficial to him. I quote OPAR page 230:

"Egoism states that each man's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own welfare, well-being, or self-interest (these terms are synonyms here.)"

Does the Objectivist ethics allow for the upbringing, education, and protection of children at one's own expense?

[Inspector]

Yes. On two counts:

1) Responsibility for one's actions (i.e. creating the children)

2) Love is a selfish emotion. It is an act of saying I value this. I choose this.

Picture if you will raising children, not as something you want to do because you love them, but rather as an unselfish duty. Something you despise, yet grit your teeth and bear.

That's not a happy family right there.

[ctrl y]

Yes. On two counts:

1) Responsibility for one's actions (i.e. creating the children)

2) Love is a selfish emotion. It is an act of saying I value this. I choose this.

Picture if you will raising children, not as something you want to do because you love them, but rather as an unselfish duty. Something you despise, yet grit your teeth and bear.

That's not a happy family right there.

A person has to care for their children as a "responsibility"? Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? It sounds like you're propounding something similar to the concept of "duty". Also, I think Piekoff said somewhere (I'll look for the quote) that Objectivism allows for abortion, which would contradict the idea that Rand held children must be cared for to "take responsibility" for one's creation of them.

Edit: found the quote

"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no rights of parts of individuals - no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to man - and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and physically seperate from one another. That which lives within the body of another can claim no prerogatives against its host" (OPAR 357).

Actually, upon rereading this, it looks like he's arguing from the stance that things that aren't fully human don't have rights. Still, I think the last line (underlined) is pertinent to the discussion here.

I think your second point is stronger, but I have a question about it as well. How can love be a "selfish" emotion when it can lead to self-sacrifice up to and including the loss of one's life?

Edited September 21, 2007 by ctrl y

[RationalBiker]

A person has to care for their children as a "responsibility"? Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? It sounds like you're propounding something similar to the concept of "duty". Also, I think Piekoff said somewhere (I'll look for the quote) that Objectivism allows for abortion, which would contradict the idea that Rand held children must be cared for to "take responsibility" for one's creation of them.

Think for a moment about the difference between being pregnant and having a child for which to care. Do you see any difference between these two things that your statements above are not considering?

[Antonio]

A person has to care for their children as a "responsibility"? Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? It sounds like you're propounding something similar to the concept of "duty". Also, I think Piekoff said somewhere (I'll look for the quote) that Objectivism allows for abortion, which would contradict the idea that Rand held children must be cared for to "take responsibility" for one's creation of them.

Edit: found the quote

"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no rights of parts of individuals - no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to man - and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and physically seperate from one another. That which lives within the body of another can claim no prerogatives against its host" (OPAR 357).

Actually, upon rereading this, it looks like he's arguing from the stance that things that aren't fully human don't have rights. Still, I think the last line (underlined) is pertinent to the discussion here.

I think your second point is stronger, but I have a question about it as well. How can love be a "selfish" emotion when it can lead to self-sacrifice up to and including the loss of one's life?

You're missing the point of that quote. I am not going to rehash the abortion debate that has taken place here many times before, but an unborn child at the early stages of fetal development is what Piekoff is referring to, not a child that is born and created by the actions of a man and woman.

I will refer you to this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...10406&st=14, where I chimed in on the topic of the rights of disabled people to be cared for with my twist on it as a parent. My take is that my wife and I chose to bear our daughter, and therefore are responsible for her care and upbringing.

Subsequent posts by myself and others touched on the issue of personal responsibility and accountability. Children are the result of having sex. One comparison made there was to driving a car. Two people who have sex do so assuming the full range of consequences involved such as disease or pregnancy, just as a driver assumed liability for his actions when he gets behind the wheel of a car.

Other posts addressed adoption or institutionalization, where they were argued as moral because they are a form of fulfilling the parental obligation to ensure care when a mother and/or father cannot or doesn't want to care for a child.

Abortion is a side issue to this because that involves a question of whether a woman has the right to decide what she will do with her body. When an abortion happens, a child does not result. Therefore the "What about the children?" question is irrelevant.

[Antonio]

Yes. On two counts:

1) Responsibility for one's actions (i.e. creating the children)

2) Love is a selfish emotion. It is an act of saying I value this. I choose this.

Picture if you will raising children, not as something you want to do because you love them, but rather as an unselfish duty. Something you despise, yet grit your teeth and bear.

That's not a happy family right there.

This is very well put. The "for the children" canard is used all the time by people wanting to advance their political or social agenda. I regularly provoke questions in the minds of other parents at my daughters' schools when I make it clear that I volunteer for selfish reasons, not "for the children."

Most parents that I share my views with have found my ideas provocative and persuasive - that they're here volunteering at school or on a field trip because they are expressing their values. They're there to help their own child have a better experience or to enjoy the personal emotional satisfaction of seeing children happy and enjoying life. I make no bones that's why I am there, for those reasons and because of the political capital I gain with my daughters' schools, and how we get preferential treatment, including the teachers of our choice, because we regularly help.

It's actually an extension of the two points above. We chose to have our children. They are our responsibility and I do not expect others to bear the burden unnecessarily or involuntarily.

Edited September 21, 2007 by Antonio

[DragonMaci]

It's actually an extension of the two points above. We chose to have our children. They are our responsibility and I do not expect others to bear the burden unnecessarily or involuntarily.

Good. I assume you would accept if the help was selfishly offered though?

Oh, and I agree with what you have said on this thread.

[blackdiamond]

I don't think you ought to take care of your children as a duty - just because you bore them (what about adopted children?) or for whatever other reason.

You ought to take proper care of them because you love them.

And if you are a rational man, you will love your children (as young and innocent humans, with their natural potential for virtue and greatness).

If you do not love your children, which means you are irrational, you are still not duty-bound to take care of them - you should give them up for adoption or whatever other options would be readily available in a free society. This would actually be good for them since they would not have to be brought up by an irrational parent (or an unloving parent).

That's my initial take on it.

[Inspector]

A person has to care for their children as a "responsibility"?

Responsibilities are chosen; duties are not. It may sound similar, but there is a world of difference.

Responsibility is taking ownership of the consequences of one's actions. It is respecting the effect that one's actions have on the rights of other people, as well as what effects those actions will have on oneself.

Duty is devotion to otherworldly commands - either from unseen deities or "just because." They have no basis in the rights of others or indeed any basis on this earth.

The latter is in fact feeding on and ripping off the former, smuggling in peoples' sense of value for the former in order to enslave them.

"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no rights of parts of individuals - no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to man - and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and physically seperate from one another. That which lives within the body of another can claim no prerogatives against its host" (OPAR 357).

Actually, upon rereading this, it looks like he's arguing from the stance that things that aren't fully human don't have rights.

Stop. Stop right there, because you have correctly understood what he is going for. A lump of tissue is not a human being. Your question was about children, not about mindless lumps of tissue.

I think your second point is stronger, but I have a question about it as well. How can love be a "selfish" emotion when it can lead to self-sacrifice up to and including the loss of one's life?

Love is a devotion to that which one values. To the things (and people) that make life worth living for you. Sacrifice, as defined by Objectivism is not simply any loss of value, but the loss of a greater value in exchange for a lesser value or no value.

If you love your wife more than your money then it is not a sacrifice to spend all of your money to cure her terminal disease. Love does not in fact lead to self-sacrifice.

Altruists want you to think so, though, because just like with duty, they smuggle in some of what we value to try to sell their poison.

Is this helping you to understand the matter?

[Antonio]

Good. I assume you would accept if the help was selfishly offered though?

Oh, and I agree with what you have said on this thread.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would hope that anyone who wanted to help me, be it a friend, co-worker, etc. would help me because I am worthy enough that they would be happy to help, or agree with our values or an ideal we are trying to achieve (such as breaking access and perceptual barriers faced by our daughter).

As an example, my daughter's pediatrician wrote a letter of medical necessity and prescription for some innovative disabled mobility devices we're obtaining, Wijits and an iBot. He did this without charging us for his time, and told us he agrees with our ideal that as an individual my daughter should be able to go wherever technology makes it possible - in this case hiking, to the beach, up stairs, curbs, to field trips or other areas that are not wheelchair-friendly. Here we are fighting the leftist-collectivist mentality where everyone who is disabled (mind you, my daughter's only problem is she can't walk) should have only the bare minimum to avoid being in an institution. We're asked sometimes why would Sophia "need" to be able to attend a concert on a green or go to to the beach? As if they can tell me what's good for my daughter.

I didn't have a problem with her doctor helping us free of charge with the needed paperwork because he supports our indivudualist ideal as well.

And thanks for the good words on my posts.

[DragonMaci]

I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would hope that anyone who wanted to help me, be it a friend, co-worker, etc. would help me because I am worthy enough that they would be happy to help, or agree with our values or an ideal we are trying to achieve (such as breaking access and perceptual barriers faced by our daughter).

Yeah, if I could, which I can't, I would gladly help with some of the money you are trying to raise for your dauther's iBot. Why? Because I feel it is my duty? No. Because i value people being independant. That is a one of my highest values, so I would feel proud in helping someone achieve it. That selfish reason is why I would do it. I wouldn't wanmt to help otherwise. And I wouldn't accept help from anyone unless they had a selfish motive.

We're asked sometimes why would Sophia "need" to be able to attend a concert on a green or go to to the beach?

Is that the Sophia from this forum? I have spoken to her a few times in forum threads and the chat. I like her.

And thanks for the good words on my posts.

Credit where credit is due.

[Antonio]

Yeah, if I could, which I can't, I would gladly help with some of the money you are trying to raise for your dauther's iBot. Why? Because I feel it is my duty? No. Because i value people being independant. That is a one of my highest values, so I would feel proud in helping someone achieve it. That selfish reason is why I would do it. I wouldn't wanmt to help otherwise. And I wouldn't accept help from anyone unless they had a selfish motive.

Is that the Sophia from this forum? I have spoken to her a few times in forum threads and the chat. I like her.

Credit where credit is due.

He he. No. Sophia from this forum is someone else. I like her too. Appropriately enough, it means wisdom, from Greek, which is why we chose that.

It's funny how duty came up. My wife is being told she has to do my daughter's school book fair in a place where she doesn't want it because of a petty request by a handful of teachers. That smaller space would be a disaster, so she told them she would not do it unless it's on her terms. One response is "But you have to. We have to have a book fair." She told them if they want her labor for free and want to benefit from her creativity and marketing skills they have to let her be creative. So unless the principal changes his mind, she's pulling another Roark!

The audacity to think she has a duty to help, a claim on her free labor. She made it clear she will do this only if she can have a good time and do it in the way she knows to make it successful (the three years my wife has run it, they more than doubled the funds raised), not because she owes it to the school. Why her and not another parent? Well, because my wife knows how to get it done, and they know it.. A part of me wants her to blow it up to teach them a lesson.

[-archimedes-]

Rand's ethics, as I understand it, begins with the idea that man ought to do what is most beneficial to him. I quote OPAR page 230:

"Egoism states that each man's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own welfare, well-being, or self-interest (these terms are synonyms here.)"

Does the Objectivist ethics allow for the upbringing, education, and protection of children at one's own expense?

Other members' contributions notwithstanding, I am prodded to ask a couple questions myself inasmuch as your inquiry seems to be posed in more so a self-centric context, as opposed to general curiosity, tell me what could be more so egotistical to a mere mortal than the opportunity to play God?

I ask because children allow us the opportunity to do just that, providing us with a being that is a "clean slate" that we could chose to template after our own designs, ideas, concepts, perceptions, etc., etc...or...to instill the morality, values, concepts and ideology that we, ourselves, wish we would have gotten as children, either way molding them into our own concept of what a person should be because we are all gods to our children as we are all of the world that there is to them during their developmental years.

So then, is it a matter of selfishness/"Egoism" that you post these inquiries, or is this merely a facade you don to disguise a deeper disposition for insecurity in handling the magnitude of such responsibility is the question that you should not be asking of us, but rather of yourself...after all, introspection is the utmost compliment of egotism, is it not?

[musenji]

As I understand it, that sort of moral psychologizing--the kind based on an unconfirmed assumption--is part of what keeps some honest people away from Objectivism. I'm not even sure why you think the question was posed in a "self-centric context". It certainly sounded like general curiosity to me. But I'll let ctrl y answer for that.

what could be more so egotistical to a mere mortal than the opportunity to play God?

Egotistical perhaps, but not egoist. Rand's idea of selfishness/egoism didn't include revelry in the idea of "playing God" for another human being. That was Gail Wynand's particular brand of second-handedness--seeking to bend others to his will.

I don't think "molding" is a good way to think of parenting. Providing a rational environment so that it's likely that the kid turns out rational as well, sure. But "molding" is a term properly used for the manipulation of inanimate matter, not developing human beings.

Regarding a child as a "template" is degrading. Yes, you can attempt to instill your values into them, but maybe they will disagree (particularly if they notice a discrepancy between your words and your actions). And if they disagree, can you force them to think the way you want them to?

Edited September 30, 2007 by musenji

[Robert J. Kolker]

Yes. On two counts:

1) Responsibility for one's actions (i.e. creating the children)

2) Love is a selfish emotion. It is an act of saying I value this. I choose this.

Picture if you will raising children, not as something you want to do because you love them, but rather as an unselfish duty. Something you despise, yet grit your teeth and bear.

That's not a happy family right there.

Not only that, the kids will catch on before they are two. I have four of my own and five grandchildren with whom I am close and I can tell you a little kid does not miss a thing. They -know- how their parents are even before they have the words to say how their parents are.

Bob Kolker

[DragonMaci]

Regarding a child as a "template" is degrading. Yes, you can attempt to instill your values into them, but maybe they will disagree (particularly if they notice a discrepancy between your words and your actions). And if they disagree, can you force them to think the way you want them to?

Indeed. From the age of ten onwards I disagreed with a lot of the things my mother tried to teach me (my father didn't try to teach me anything; he wasn't there, he had scappered). I noticed ciscrepancies in what she said and reality. Could she force me to think how she wanted to? No, she coudln't. All she could do was try to convince me, which she didn't.