Traditionalist Critique of Objectivism

[~Sophia~]

Child-rearing is a fulfilling experience for you. For that I am glad. But I just want to note (although this is not your intention) that when you make a list of X, Y, and Z of how raising a child adds to your hedonic calculus it sounds almost repulsive.

The pleasure I have spoken of is not the standard but a consequence and it is based on a rational judgment. That is not hedonism. Happiness is a proper purpose of our life.

What happens when it stops being "fulfilling"? You might argue that you would still be "committed," but based off of what?

Very strange hypothetical given my description of the bond but I will answer. Based on a recognition of a principle that a man is responsible for his choices and actions combined with an understanding (based on facts of reality) that the decision to bring a child to this world IS a commitment to take care for it until he is able to care for himself.

If objectivists quip and quabble all of the time about the very status of rights for Children, is this really what you want to base your human instinct for procreation on?

There is no instinct to procreate.

Surely you would fight like hell to save your kid's life. Prove to me, as Rand would say, that the rational reason for you to do so is that you would not be able to live a moral life afterwards without his existence?

I would want to save my child's life because he is a great value to me but I would be able to live without his existance.

What about your siblings? I don't know about you, but I would fight like hell to save my sister's life.

That choice is personal. It depends how much of a value another's life is to you vs. how much risk you are willing to take against your own life in order to save theirs. All of those are value judgments. For example, if I had to choose between saving my sibling or my child my choice would be to save my child but I can not claim that the same is a moral choice for everyone.

Scientifically, by the way, it is impossible for someone to become fluent in any language unless they are exposed to it before the age of 10.

That is false.

Using Objectivism, could you prove to me why someone would be morally compelled to teach their child how to speak and read via language if they correctly deemed it not in their long-term rational self-interest?

I can not imagine that scenario.

If you need me to think of a situation where exposing my child to English would not be in my rational long-term self-interest I can give you one.

Not just English, your scenario speaks of any language, and yes please.

Edited December 17, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

I've read my OPAR and have a somewhat-decent-understanding of objectivism.

It does not show. A lot of what I wrote is explained in OPAR.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Very interesting discussion so far. I have a few things to add.

I understand where Sophia is coming from in her replies, but I have no idea what your position is.

It is true that Traditionalists rejected The Enlightenment. Implicitly, The Enlightenment held reason and reality as the standard, and the Traditionalists wanted to hold onto something that reason was questioning and giving new rational answers to. Broadly speaking The Enlightenment rejected "family values", religion, and tradition (if that tradition had no grounds in reason). The Traditionalist then and now want to have their bits of irrationality and yet be reasonable at one and the same time, or as some do today, want to hold on to their irrationalities and still be seen a rational people. America, hotbed of The Enlightenment, did away with or was doing away with all sorts of ways of doing things just because they had been done that way for hundreds if not thousands of years. Then and now, one can see that especially in the second generation immigrants, who want to become American against some of the wishes of their forefathers or prior teachings.

But just because someone is taught something, it doesn't mean that we owe something to those teachers in the sense of not being independent from them -- i.e. we do not become their slaves just because they taught us a lot of great things. Besides, the mind is individual, not collective; so every bit of learning that you did you did yourself, by understanding the topic. To put this more in tune with Objectivism, yes we learned a lot from Ayn Rand, but only if each one of us individually took it upon ourselves to learn its lessons. One can say that we are indebted to Ayn Rand, but in another sense all she wanted was to live in a rational culture, and to show us how to make that happen. And some of us are doing that.

So, there is no collectivism involved in either The Enlightenment or in Objectivism. You yourself must decide to come to understand it, on your own, using your own mind. You were not coerced by anyone, if you are talking about what you learned -- a mind cannot be forced to think. And each thing that you do think comes from yourself -- you cannot blame it on your teachers, not if you uphold the Objectivist understanding of independence. You had a choice to either accept what you were being taught or to reject it; and now you have a choice to either accept Objectivism or to reject it.

If you find yourself in conflict, then check your premises and choose reason and reality as your standard.