Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is the O'ist view on childbirth?

Rate this topic


gabrielpm

Recommended Posts

It seems to me that the decision to have children and its rational basis are somewhat under-discussed in the Objectivist community.

If I'm not mistaken, the predominant Objectivist view is that one ought to have children if one enjoys it (i.e. finds it a positive, life-affirming activity, received pleasure by bringing up children)

What is the rational basis for enjoying child-rasing?

How many children ought one have, and how should one decide it?

Do you think that children are a form of genetic survival, and if so, are we morally responsible to have as many as possible, in the context of our own survival?

My view is that I am my mind. My mind is my body at work, in the context of the choices I've made. Therefore, my genes are very much a part of me. I tend to think that their influence is somewhat larger than that of my choice (you may choose whatever you want, but if you're not `equiped` for it, too bad).

I think that children are genetical extensions of the self, the somatic self so to speak, and that we are bound by moral duty to raise a strong and prosperous family for very much the same reasons we are moral in fostering our own individual survival. This is not collectivism, or the dissolution of the self into the family, but a view on the genetics of the self.

Please comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It seems to me that the decision to have children and its rational basis are somewhat under-discussed in the Objectivist community.
There is at least one private Objectivist parenting list.

What is the rational basis for enjoying child-rasing?

The sheer pleasure of being again in a child's world, of seeing that world on a moment by moment basis from the perspective of a child's discovery.

The incredible delight in watching, and aiding, the growth of a mind.

The love and affection to be lavishly shared. More to love is good.

Another pal to play with. At the beach, riding bikes, throwing balls, going to Disneyland, seeing movies.

Sleepovers with all the friends. Nothing quite like haqving a bunch of kids running around.

There are a million different reasons for having a child, and different people will have different reasons. For me, it was, and is, the most fun that can be done legally. I have also learned a lot about psychology which I had not the opportunity to discover before.

How many children ought one have, and how should one decide it?
As many as you can handle and fit into your lifestyle. It is probably a good idea to space them out at least two or three years. The kind of attention which children need changes drastically as they develop, and having a spacing gives you a better opportunity to handle more than one. Personally, I do not think most people who do have children, should. I think children deserve to have an awful lot of care and attention, and the parents need to arrange the rest of their lives to insure that that happens. If you cannot devote the time and effort necessary, then don't have children.

Do you think that children are a form of genetic survival, and if so, are we morally responsible to have as many as possible, in the context of our own survival?

I do not mean to sound overly harsh, but this sort of notion is probably the worst reason to have children. Children are not a duty for man's survival. They are an absolute pleasure in and of themselves, if you have the right mental set for wanting and enjoying a child. If you cannot mentally see yourself in the role of being a parent, and thinking that the experience is the best thing next to your wife, then forget the children. Children deserve more.

I've snipped the rest, which I now see is a more detailed explication of this sense of duty for the sake of genetic extension. I implore you -- do not have kids. On this premise you will just make their life miserable, as well as your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a new parent (two six-month old girls, one adopted, one not), I must agree wholeheartedly with Stephen about the joys of parenting. And second his admonition that there is no duty to have children. It is a grueling task to be ultimately responsible for another human being for eighteen years and doing it out of a sense of duty would drive one crazy and breed resentment.

If you're ready for it, it's the greatest thing you'll ever have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that children are a form of genetic survival, and if so, are we morally responsible to have as many as possible, in the context of our own survival?

To comment on Gabriel’s post, I could never understand why anyone should care the slightest about whether his children share his genes. Along the same lines, I don’t know why anyone would attach any significance to a biological parent who did not raise him. Unlike animals, civilized human beings pass values via their ideas, not their biology. Anyone who thinks that his genes are the most important thing he can pass one his children is implicitly denying the value of his own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic, but I have a question for BBrown and Stephen Speicher - I'm wondering how you raise your children in light of your Objectivist views. How much of your beliefs do you introduce them to? I wouldn't expect an Objectivist to behave like a religious parent, most of whom indoctrinate their children with their faith. (I know Objectivism isn't a religion or faith, I'm merely using an example.)But I WOULD expect Objectivist parents to try and instill a sense of right and wrong and the importance of their mind, as well as teach children to feel not guilt about selfish happiness. But I'd like to know what your views on the value-instilling part of parenting are.

Also, how do you deal with school? Private schools exclusively? In public schools today, most children are forced to learn about things like the importance of sharing, saving the environment from global warming, and other things that Objectivists find objectionable. I'm curious how you deal with this.

This is an area of double interest for me - I'm going to graduate school to learn about early childhood education, and, as a 22 year old with a love of children, I can't wait to have one of my own. Stephen's post is a great expression of exactly why it seems like it'll be such a great experience.

So if you have any experience with this, please respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot speak for myself (my only child died at a young age), but my sister is also an Objectivist and has raised one grown son and is in the process of raising another. She has instilled her beliefs by simply living a rational life, first and foremost. E.g., she always gives reasons (age appropriate) for why one behaves in a certain way, etc. She doesn't set arbitrary rules. She's consistent. She always keeps the discussion to what is and gently stems flights of fancy (you parents know what kind of finesse this takes!). As questions are asked, she answers honestly, sometimes (when appropriate) she asks questions back until the child sees the answer for himself. This last she learned from our father, who almost always used this Socratic method to make us think for outselves, while supplying relevent information we needed, but didn't have because of a lack of experience.

As for schools: She was a single mother with her first son and didn't have the financial where-withall for a private school, nor did she have as much time as she would have liked to have spent helping his education. It shows. My nephew is a lovely young man, and while he is very intelligent, he is educationally retarded, so to speak, ignorant of subjects he ought to have been taught, but wasn't. It hasn't stopped him from pursuing his interests -- he's self-educated in the areas that he loves. He sought out help with math on his own when he wasn't getting what he needed in school. He eschewed most of the garbage they tried to cram down his throat. (For instance, he hated "history" until I gave him some decent books. Until then, he thought history consisted of stories about individuals who lived in a certain era -- i.e., social studies -- which bored him to tears. My sister spent a lot of time deprograming him, which she had to be careful about because "teacher says". It was a terrible time for her and she feels some guilt about it even now.

After sending her second son to public school for 3 years, she finally gave up. Up until the 2nd grade, he had excellent teachers who concentrated on basic studies and laying the proper foundations in the core areas, such as language, arithmetic, etc. When he went into the 2nd grade this year, however, his teacher was a disaster. The first note she sent home with the boy was full of misspelled words and gross grammatical errors. AND, the note was about mandatory parent participation in a "Save Our Planet" program! She pulled him out within the first week of school and has been home-schooling him ever since. She absolutely loves it! So does my nephew. He now reads on a 4th grade level, his math skills are close to 4th grade levels, and he gets actual basic science instead of the evironmental claptrap that passed for science at his school. She vows now that she will never send him back to public school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that his genes are the most important thing he can pass one his children is implicitly denying the value of his own mind.

Well, I do like my eyes, and my girlfriend's nose... but you're right: my knowledge and values are more important. :)

BTW - You seem to assume that no mental abilities (for example - different kinds of intelligence) are hereditary.

As far as I know - there is no conclusive proof to either side yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Skywalker" asks some great questions about raising children.

Long before children can sustain extended reasoning processes, they are already setting the foundation for their overall sense of life. The first job for a parent -- though it is not proper to call such pleasure a job -- is to provide as much love and protection as humanly possible. A child needs to sense the world as a friendly place where his needs are met, not a hostile environment where he typically encounters frustration. I doubt that it is possible to provide too much love to a child in the early years of his life.

The first and most important way to teach children about ideas is by example. Long before a child is capable of involved ethical validations he observes the fairness, honesty, justice, benevolence, etc. in how you treat others. Long before a child can reason about the man-woman relationship he observes how his parents act with each other. I was constantly (and pleasantly) amazed at just how observant a child can be, and how much they retain of what they observe. When we got to talk explictly about ideas it was a delight to often see how natural some ideas seemed, as if we were just identifying what was already there.

I think it to be a big mistake to push the philosophy. Rather use appropriate real-life situations which arise as an opportunity to communicate. If ideas are more like practical ways of doing things, rather than lectures, they have more of a sense of reality and meaning to the child. You want to inculcate a strong sense of what is right and wrong, good and bad, in all areas -- from a child's character to his relationship with the rest of the world -- but rather than batter the child with ideas he cannot handle or is not interested in at the time, show him instead by your own example and by practical application to the events in his life.

As far as schools are concerned: Our son was always in private school until we moved to an area where the public schools were actually better than the private ones. Frankly, though, if I had it to do over again, I think I would have opted for home schooling instead. Between Betsy and me we pretty much have world knowledge covered, and I think we could have provided a better curriculum. But, even so, the issues which "Skywalker" raised, like global warming, were never really a concern. By the time my son was confronted with that sort of nonsense he was pretty much prepared on his own to deal with it. If you foster independence in action and words then the child is not afraid to stand alone apart from the politically correct nonsense that he encounters.

These words are just a succinct response to some of the questions asked; a full response would take a book. Feel free to ask anything more specific. But, I want to get one more point in, especially since in other circles some rather bad ideas in regard to children have been promulgated.

When children express their own interest in pusuing something -- assuming it legal and not physically harmful -- I think that a parent should do whatever he can to support such independence on the part of the child. There is a logical sort of hierarchy to learning -- and there are mental and physical facts which delimit what a child is capable of doing at any given time -- but if a child desires to go beyond that hierarchy one should treat that desire like a gift from god, not something to be squashed out of fear. Some of the best things that an independent child can learn are those things which he has a strong desire to know and experience. To teach a child that certain things are bad for him, because supposedly he is not ready for that, is to teach a child that the world is not open to his reach and that his own interests conflict with the nature of things. In short, kiss the ground that your child walks upon when he wants to explore on his own, above and beyond what the "hierarchy" prescribes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Speicher writes:

When children express their own interest in pusuing something -- assuming it legal and not physically harmful -- I think that a parent should do whatever he can to support such independence on the part of the child. There is a logical sort of hierarchy to learning -- and there are mental and physical facts which delimit what a child is capable of doing at any given time --  but if a child desires to go beyond that hierarchy one should treat that desire like a gift from god, not something to be squashed out of fear.

That raises an interesting question: how should one treat the subject of sex, say, with a thirteen year old? In almost every case I can think of, that is probably too young to have sex. On the other hand, I think one of the most awful things most parents do place "having sex" alongside "drinking," "smoking," and, "doing drugs," on their list of things they had better not catch their child doing. How can one make it clear to a child that age that sex is good...so good they shouldn't be having it yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That raises an interesting question: how should one treat the subject of sex, say, with a thirteen year old?  In almost every case I can think of, that is probably too young to have sex.

You don't wait until they are thirteen.

You communicate to them, and show them by example, that the relationship is normal, based on values, for adults, private, and important . You discuss sex when the subject comes up in the context of everyday life -- which it does quite often.

When a child is a toddler you tell him that people cover some parts of their bodies in public, not because they are shameful, but because they are much too precious to share with just anybody. When a child is old enough to understand, you make sure he knows the biological facts and how to avoid bad consequences like pregnancy and disease.

Once that is done, a parent should butt out and respect his child's privacy and judgement. The fact is, once a child is old enough for sex, there isn't much more a parent can do anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once that is done, a parent should butt out and respect his child's privacy and judgement.  The fact is, once a child is old enough for sex, there isn't much more a parent can do anyway.

This is excellent parenting advice, Betsy. My parents each had opposite ideas about how to deal with the possibility of me having sex. My father was realistic; he provided me with condoms, information, etc. My mother forbade any kind of sexual activity, wouldn't allow me to have girlfriends in my room, and would call them sluts (a couple of times to their face) if there was any hint that we were having sex. The only thing my mother's attitude accomplish was to alienate me, cause me to sneak around, and instill in me a fear of coming to her with problems.

P.S. The opposition of parenting methods was a whole other problem in itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>the predominant Objectivist view is that one ought to have children if one enjoys it (i.e. finds it a positive, life-affirming activity, received pleasure by bringing up children)

Once we have children, and what is best for them conflicts with what is enjoyable, positive, life-affirming and pleasurable for us, how are we to act?

For those who decide to have children, when the two conflict, are they obligated to live for the children's rational self interest or for their own rational self interest?

Is there a moral duty to subordinate our own interests for 18 years to the needs of our children?

What do you do when your child rejects your objectivist views and believes that altruism by their parents is their God-given right?

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we have children, and what is best for them conflicts with what is enjoyable, positive, life-affirming and pleasurable for us, how are we to act?

For those who decide to have children, when the two conflict, are they obligated to live for the children's rational self interest or for their own rational self interest?

Is there a moral duty to subordinate our own interests for 18 years to the needs of our children?

What do you do when your child rejects your objectivist views and believes that altruism by their parents is their God-given right?

:)

Having a child -- creating a child -- is like having a business contract, in spades! That is a contract that you cannot break. You bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to do all that is objectively required of you in support and furtherance of preparing that child for him to live properly for the rest of his life.

Hopefully, before taking such an enormous step as having a child, you research the subject carefully enough that you know, at least in principle, what things will be like and what to expect. You plan ahead intellectually, emotionally, financially, and make sure you are equipped for the task. You make sure that all of your priorities are in order and properly understood, because once you have the child it cannot be undone.

Now, if despite your best efforts you wind up with "the child from hell," and you find no pleasure at all in the act of parenting, I suppose it would be justified to hire someone to do the task which you yourself are unwilling to do. But, the fundamental responsibility remains your own, at least until the child becomes an adult by terms of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a child -- creating a child -- is like having a business contract, in spades! That is a contract that you cannot break. You bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to do all that is objectively required of you in support and furtherance of preparing that child for him to live properly for the rest of his life.

Let me see if I understand correctly:

Having a child is a legal and moral contract that requires you to subordinate your rational self-interest to the "other"-interest of the child until they are of legal age?

Is the contract really that extensive or is there a smaller obligation than living in "their"-interest?

You could not pay someone to do the job as I stated it orginally, because it would never be in someone's self-interest to subordinate their self-interest for the sake of money, so I don't see how the obligation could be transfered. Perhaps you could contract for food, water, shelter, and a simple education. Is that all the contract is for?

To whom is this contract binding? On the mother alone? On the father as well?

What if the mother got pregnant despite her best efforts and there are no means to ending the pregnancy? Is she still obligated simply because she gave birth? What if she was raped? (I am assuming getting the child out by giving birth rather than abortion was her choice to remove the fetus because of the risks of abortion).

Is the father under the same obligation as the mother or is his responsibility less? What if he was willing to pay for an abortion but not willing to pay for 18 years of being raised ($$$)?

Is this a one-way contract, or do children have any responsibilities that they must fulfill to their parents? In many cultures children are expected to repay their parents by providing for them in their old-age - children are a form of retirement, a store of value investment. Objectivism rejects this, but why isn't this an obligation that children *must* repay. Why isn't this part of the contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand correctly:

Having a child is a legal and moral contract that requires you to subordinate your rational self-interest to the "other"-interest of the child until they are of legal age?

You do not understand correctly. None of what you say is contained in or implied by what I said. But, let me ask you a question. What does "rational self-interest" mean to you?

To whom is this contract binding?  On the mother alone?  On the father as well?
Both. Equally.

What if the mother got pregnant despite her best efforts and there are no means to ending the pregnancy?  Is she still obligated simply because she gave birth?

Of course she is. Should I be held responsible for my actions simply because I killed someone?

What if she was raped? (I am assuming getting the child out by giving birth rather than abortion was her choice to remove the fetus because of the risks of abortion).
Why would rape change anything about responsibility on the mother's part?

Is the father under the same obligation as the mother or is his responsibility less?

As I said before, in general, the father has the same legal and moral responsibility as the mother.

What if he was willing to pay for an abortion but not willing to pay for 18 years of being raised ($$$)?
Now that is an interesting question. I used to think that the act of refusing to get the abortion desired by the man, thereby made the woman assume full responsibility for the result. In re-thinking the issue, I am now beginning to consider that the initial sex act itself implied the possibility of a child -- knowing that condoms might fail, knowing that the choice of abortion is ultimately not his to make.

I do not know enough about the legal issues involved, but I am in the process of re-considering the moral issue. I am open to arguments.

Is this a one-way contract, or do children have any responsibilities that they must fulfill to their parents?

The child did not choose to be born, but, nevertheless, part of the job of a parent is to educate the child as to the rational responsibilities he has in regard to how he deals with his parents. But, these are a different sort of responsibility from the one we were talking about in regard to the parents' obligations to the child. By virtue of bringing the child into the world, the parent is responsible for providing appropriate health care, clothing, food, education, etc., whereas the child's repsonsibilities are less to do with tangible items than with how he relates to the parent.

In many cultures children are expected to repay their parents by providing for them in their old-age - children are a form of retirement, a store of value investment. Objectivism rejects this, but why isn't this an obligation that children *must* repay.  Why isn't this part of the contract?

The obligations of the parents to the child is due to the child by right, not as an obligation to be repaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is that I am my mind. My mind is my body at work, in the context of the choices I've made.

I loved this litte piece, i just had to say that. I don't know if i'm the correct person to comment on this. but if you want a variety of perspectives, i guess mine won't cause any harm. in my opinion, the act of making children is way too abused. i don't agree with your idea of "we have to carry on the population", i mean, this is obvious, but with the billion people out there reproducing each week, i highly doubt we have a problem, so having that sort of mentality just becomes an excuse to have more kids as a "necessity for the good of mankind" and i'm sure you understand why i would be against this. If you want children and are ready for them, then that's all that matters i guess. i can't speak for the objectivistic viewpoint because i think in such matters, it's not really relevant except for the fact that you are in control of whatever you wish to do, and if that is your goal, then, nothing should keep you from trying to attain it. how many? in my opinion...one is enough, and more than the future can really handle, i mean you know the effects that one mind can have, i guess i'm saying, isn't that enough. if you think otherwise, i'm sorry, because i'm not here to contradict the views of anyone. this is just how i feel about the topic. yet, in some way, it doesn't seem right to be so selfish about having a child. before i get attacked, i will say what i mean. i guess it sort of sounded to me like people want children just so they can have someone to look up to them, to influence, to instruct and tell what to do, to mold into whatever basic form you wish them to take. it becomes a type of manipulation that i disagree with. perhaps i misunderstood. i suggest you listen more to the comments of others...this was simply my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i also wanted to say that all of you parents that posted here, sound like amazing parents and i support you. i can't really say i would ever have children, i'm sorry. i think i'd feel better caring for an adopted child, or some other kid already out there that would desperatley need my assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would rape change anything about responsibility on the mother's part?

If the following quote was true:

"Having a child -- creating a child -- is like having a business contract, in spades! That is a contract that you cannot break. You bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to do all that is objectively required of you in support and furtherance of preparing that child for him to live properly for the rest of his life."

Then rape completely absolves the mother of any responsibility for raising the child. The mother cannot be forced to enter into a contract, and therefore cannot be forced to be responsible for a child whose conception she did not choose.

How could you say that being raped would be equivalent to willinging entering into a contract? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still confused. :confused: If the following is true:

"Having a child -- creating a child -- is like having a business contract, in spades! That is a contract that you cannot break. You bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to do all that is objectively required of you in support and furtherance of preparing that child for him to live properly for the rest of his life."

1. Who is the mother entering into a business contract with? The child is not an individual when the mother's actions, inactions or mistakes cause the child to be born.

2. If the mother simply walks away from this responsibility that society has forced upon her against her will and claims she and she alone is responsible for, what would be done to her? You can't force a mother to raise a child. How is the contract enforcable?

3. Who determines if the mother's end of the contract is being fulfilled? Who (except the mother herself) could determine what she should do or how she should raise her children? And if she alone if the judge of her actions, then in what sense could you call it a contract?

Other than having a child, are there other implied contracts that you can enter into even though you signed and agreed to nothing simply by certain actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the following quote was true:

"Having a child -- creating a child -- is like having a business contract, in spades! That is a contract that you cannot break. You bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to do all that is objectively required of you in support and furtherance of preparing that child for him to live properly for the rest of his life."

Then rape completely absolves the mother of any responsibility for raising the child. 

No. The woman had a choice to make -- abort the fetus, or not. In your scenario you said she chose not to abort. That choice is what directly led to the birth of the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still confused.  :confused:  If the following is true:

"Having a child -- creating a child -- is like having a business contract, in spades! That is a contract that you cannot break. You bring a child into this world, it is your responsibility to do all that is objectively required of you in support and furtherance of preparing that child for him to live properly for the rest of his life."

1. Who is the mother entering into a business contract with?  The child is not an individual when the mother's actions, inactions or mistakes cause the child to be born.

First, I think it is time for you to get rid of this "business contract" stuff. Back a dozen or so posts ago, when I said "Having a child -- creating a child -- is like having a business contract, in spades!" I did not mean a literal business contract with prepared papers for you to sign. I was, via a metaphor, underscoring the significance of being responsible for one's actions.

The mother does not sign a literal contract in the presence of lawyers representing the fetus. Nevertheless, she is morally and legally responsible for her actions, and such responsibilities are codified ethically in a proper philosophy, and codified legally within proper law.

2. If the mother simply walks away from this responsibility that society has forced upon her against her will and claims she and she alone is responsible for, what would be done to her?  You can't force a mother to raise a child.  How is the contract enforcable?

What do you mean by "society forced upon her?" If the woman is not prepared to live with the reasonable laws of the land within which she resides, then she should move somewhere else. What if a murderer claimed that "society forced upon me the responsibility for my actions in killing a man, and I just want to walk away from that?" Do we just let him go?

As to how the responsibility for a child is enforced against one who so abdicates, I am not familair enough with the law to authoritatively answer that. I would assume that, at the least, the woman could be held financially responsible for the child. I do not know to what extent criminal charges would be applied, if any. Perhaps the court arranges for the child to be adopted or otherwise cared for, and the woman is required to assist financially in that support. Like I said, I just do not know enough about the legal issues to state with any certainty what would occur. But, as to the moral issue, unequivocally the woman has responsibility for that child, at least until some time that that responsibility is assumed by another. Adoption, for instance.

3. Who determines if the mother's end of the contract is being fulfilled? Who (except the mother herself) could determine what she should do or how she should raise her children? And if she alone if the judge of her actions, then in what sense could you call it a contract?
As I discussed in earlier posts, the child has certain rights surrounding the maintenance and furtherance of his life. If there are things either done to the child, or witheld from the child, which causes him sufficient or permanent harm, then that would be the sort of criteria applied. Again, I do not know enough about the law to specify this in detail, but morally speaking the child rightfully requires the food, clothing, medical treatment, education, etc. which is his by virtue of being brought into this world by his parents.

Other than having a child, are there other implied contracts that you can enter into even though you signed and agreed to nothing simply by certain actions?

Well, again, I know very little about law, but I am sure that implied contracts abound in employment and personal relations. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can detail this for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...