What is the O'ist view on childbirth?

[Thoyd Loki]

The first view is insane. A child is born with the rational faculty that by nature takes years to develop and mature. If it is something that the parents want to do, and take seriously, and can afford it, it is no way altruistic. You can't judge what nature puts before you. It is not even a debate.

[Betsy]

Recently a debate between a friend and I came to the flaws in objectivism. The first one we found, actually....the only one thus far, was the issue of childbirth and objectivism.

Is your essential purpose to find flaws in Objectivism? What for?

We believe that, if it is the rational being that conceives, and the unborn child, the fetus, is not rational, yet, then the act of childbirth is an altruistic action, and thus, morally wrong by Rand's standards.

Why do you think it is altruistic?

But, childbirth could also be viewed as an act of selfishness (the woman laboured to have the child, it is the result of her caring for her body, and was created by her own will with a man), an act in her own interest and nobody else's. Thus, morally right.

Of course. That's why many Objectivists ARE parents.

[DavidOdden]

Recently a debate between a friend and I came to the flaws in objectivism. The first one we found, actually....the only one thus far, was the issue of childbirth and objectivism.

What it actually is, is an indication that you don't understand Objectivism. If you would care to argue that there is a flaw, feel free to give it your best shot.

We believe that, if it is the rational being that conceives, and the unborn child, the fetus, is not rational, yet, then the act of childbirth is an altruistic action, and thus, morally wrong by Rand's standards.

Starting with "if it is the rationanal being...", there is no if about it, so making it seem as thought there is some conditional nature to this is wrong. The conclusion does not follow at all: a rational being who conceives and carries the child to term because it is something that she wants is not acting altruistically. You might want to review Rand's characterisation of altruism.

But, childbirth could also be viewed as an act of selfishness (the woman laboured to have the child, it is the result of her caring for her body, and was created by her own will with a man), an act in her own interest and nobody else's. Thus, morally right.

Yes, it is.

Altruism is the destruction of value: trading something of greater value for something of lesser value. It is possible to give birth altruistically: for example, to give happiness to someone you despise. If you were thinking of doing that, I would advise against it.

[Colonel Rebel]

Thoyd, Betsy, chill out. i'm not here to debunk objectivism, especially as one who has gracefully embraced it over the last few months.

But, i wanted to find out if I, we, could find flaws inherient in objectivism. If we could find flaws, then maybe it wasn't something to adhere and abide by, right? Or would you prefer that i read atlass shrug and perversely perform the rituals of Groupthink? Thought not.

But the discussion of childbirth vs altruism did come up, and it was something neither of us could come to a conclusion to, and thus i came to this board to ask the question, and probably engage in debate. Granted I read Atlas Shrugged in four days only three months ago, The ideas of objectivism, in less vague terms, is becoming more apparent to me every day. I may not be able to spout off citations from experience and knowledge as some of you o-ists can, but I am pursuing o-ism incrementally, questioning what I know vs. what objectivism preaches.

Enough of that.

Thanks for the responses though, it's greatly cleared up this one 'flaw' we were discussing.

[eetest01]

Colonel Rebel:

I don't think that procreation is inherently altruistic or rationally selfish; it depends on the values of the parents.

If the parents want a child for the joy of it, then it is purely in their own interest regardless of any benefit to the child.

If the parents procreated out of a sense of duty, despite their wishes to the contrary or inability to care for the child, then this would be a case of altruistic procreation. They would be sacrificing a value (a life unfettered by responsibilities they neither want nor can fullfill) for a lesser value or no value.

Notice, that if you are going to judge the act of procreation as altruistic or rational, then you must make that judgement on the values (or non-values) of those people committing the act. The child's state of being is irrelevent in this judgement.

[MisterSwig]

We believe that, if it is the rational being that conceives, and the unborn child, the fetus, is not rational, yet, then the act of childbirth is an altruistic action, and thus, morally wrong by Rand's standards.

It is the rational faculty which enables humans to be rational. And even newborns possess this faculty. They simply have not had years to develop it, like adults have.

Now, the fact that babies are not yet rational, like adults are rational, does not mean that childbirth is immoral. Childbirth is simply an action, like killing is an action. Killing can be moral or immoral, depending on the circumstances. Similarly, childbirth can be good or bad, depending on a person's individual circumstances.

[stephen_speicher]

Thoyd, Betsy, chill out. i'm not here to debunk objectivism, especially as one who has gracefully embraced it over the last few months.

But, i wanted to find out if I, we, could find flaws inherient in objectivism. If we could find flaws, then maybe it wasn't something to adhere and abide by, right? Or would you prefer that i read atlass shrug and perversely perform the rituals of Groupthink? Thought not.

But the discussion of childbirth vs altruism did come up, and it was something neither of us could come to a conclusion to, and thus i came to this board to ask the question, and probably engage in debate. Granted I read Atlas Shrugged in four days only three months ago, The ideas of objectivism, in less vague terms, is becoming more apparent to me every day. I may not be able to spout off citations from experience and knowledge as some of you o-ists can, but I am pursuing o-ism incrementally, questioning what I know vs. what objectivism preaches.

It seems as if you consumed Atlas Shrugged the way that I also did when I first read it. No one could get me off of the couch for the entire extended weekend ("Go out and play!")

I think it is great that you not only enjoyed the book but that you are also seriously interested in understanding the philosophy. One word of advice, if you will. Unlike yourself, who is so new to the philosophy, this forum has a number of well-seasoned veterans in internet discussions of Objectivism. Unfortunately there are a rather large number of mean-spirited detractors of Objectivism who often distort the philosophy and then poke holes in criticism of their strawman.

So ... when what you really want is clarification of Objectivist ideas, it is best not to introduce yourself as someone who has found flaws in Objectivism. The tendancy of those who have been around for a while would be to include you in the category of detractors rather than as one who is honestly seeking clarification. After you have been around for a while I think you will get to see what I mean. It is rather amazing to observe the sort of characters who bother to come to forums devoted to Objectivism only to thumb their noses at the philsophy and its adherents.

Just meant as some helpful advice, to avoid future misunderstandings.

[Colonel Rebel]

point taken. I just wanted to put the situation in context. whether i called it a potential 'flaw' or not, i think those seasoned-veterans would have assumed that is what I was doing.

And i'm all too understanding of detractors on the board. I deal with them on protestwarrior.com and chronwatch forums....

thanks for the replies though.

[Release]

As new as I am to objectivism I would still like to interject a comment on the subject.

If 2 human beings find themself capable and rational people, decide to bear a child to populate the world with another capable rational human being. The parents of that child would be adding value to themself through emotional and mental pleasures and add value to the world if they produce the best human being possible through their rational and capable views.

There are some situations (a lot actually) where the pregnancy was a completely unexpected venture and it would cause a decrease in value to the humans having the child and to the society around them for if they are poor then they would have to use an altruistic welfare system, etc etc. So in those cases I see abortion as a completely moral and rational thing to do.

Ayn Rand views abortion as such:

"An embryo has no rights.  Rights do not pertain to a 'potential', only to an 'actual' being   A child cannot aquire any rights until it is born.  The living take precedence over the not-yet-living.

Abortion is a MORAL right - which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered."

["of LIving Death," TO, Oct 1968]

But to ask if it is altruistic to bring an un-rational being into this world, then I would say that it is the opposite of altruism for you are doing what human beings do naturely (and that is a fact in reality). And you are offering value to yourself (through emotional and intellectual means). At the same time, the by-product would be another human being who can follow any path that he or she chooses, altruistic or objective. Regardless, that isn't your choice really after a certain age, individualism would set in and that human being would then choose. But if it is a natural process to concieve children then the act of having birth would produce value if done in a mature, responsible way.

Well, thats my take on it.

~Michael

[realitycheck44]

I'm new to Objectivism and love it. I just read Atlas Shrugged and think Dagny Taggart is an ideal character (except for her flaw of placing too much optimism in the rest of mankind), but what would have happened if she had kids? Would she do favors for them, like cooking even if she was tired? Would she take off work to watch their sports games? I am talking about kids that are not old enough to support themselves.

Edited September 14, 2005 by softwareNerd

[stephen_speicher]

I'm new to objectivism and love it. I just read Atlas Shrugged and think Dagny Taggart is an ideal character (except for her flaw of placing too much optimism in the rest of mankind), but what would have happened if she had kids? Would she do favors for them, like cooking even if she was tired? Would she take off work to watch their sports games? I am talking about kids that are not old enough to support themselves.

I think that Dagny Taggart, just like any responsible adult, would not have children if she could not devote the time and effort to them that they require and deserve, and also expect to be paid back in spades for the pleasure she would have in raising a child.

[Elle]

I look at having kids as being akin to having a career, and having two careers is not desirable because it becomes exponentially harder to be good at both of them.

I'm not sure Dagny Taggart was at a point in her life, from what we saw in Atlas Shrugged, where she would have wanted to have kids. Maybe in Galt's Gulch, with John when things were perfect and they were free from the world of the moochers... but remember that she got there and was already interested in how she could build a railroad in the valley - having kids didn't appear to be her first priority.

Of course, speculation on fictional characters doesn't go anywhere - but the real life examples of Objectivists who successfully raise children that I have seen could be an indicator that the child/ren must be the focus if the parenting is going to be a successful endeavour.

[realitycheck44]

Good answers, what I meant to ask was: Do you think Dagny Taggart would become more tolerant of others after having kids? One cannot be as impatient with a kid as she was with her employees. One has to accept their failures and help them through example and explanation how to succeed without beating them down with blatant criticism. Do you think she would become nicer to others who simply cannot do something? Do you think she would become more tolerant of people who are not as smart as her as a result of having kids? While discussing the book,my mom (an engineer) said she used to be much more like Dagny, but having children has made her much more benevolent towards others. I don't know if having children can have that much effect on someone's attitude.

[Som Guy]

One cannot be as impatient with a kid as she was with her employees.

The main difference there is is that employees are means to an end, which you pay for, and a child is the end of having one. You would rationally, in both situations, act in the way that would be best for achiving what you want. When you have paid for a service, you should demand it and not let them recieve payment for things they did not do, or did not do right. However the purpose of raising a child is to raise as good of a human as you can, which would require whatever type of action you deem best I guess. I don't really know how to raise one, so I'd have to leave that to you to decide.

Edit: Dagny acts in the best rational way towards people for her, having a child should not change how she acts to those same people as the child is irrelevant to the situation and would not change the outcome of what should be done. The way Dagny acted towards people was rational, having a child should not change that.

[stephen_speicher]

Good answers, what I meant to ask was: Do you think Dagny Taggart would become more tolerant of others after having kids? One cannot be as impatient with a kid as she was with her employees. One has to accept their failures and help them through example and explanation how to succeed without beating them down with blatant criticism. Do you think she would become nicer to others who simply cannot do something? Do you think she would become more tolerant of people who are not as smart as her as a result of having kids? While discussing the book,my mom (an engineer) said she used to be much more like Dagny, but having children has made her much more benevolent towards others.

Dagny Taggart was an extremely benevolent person, one whose benevolence stemmed from her own selfish interests. Any child of hers would be forever grateful to have as benevolent a mother as she would be, if she chose to have a child. I wonder what you actually mean by "tolerant." Do you see "tolerance" as being opposed to "justice?"

[realitycheck44]

That answered my question. Thanks. No, I do not see tolerance as opposed to justice. With kids, you can be brutally honest and tell them they failed, and be tolerant by explaining what they did wrong, why, and how to fix it. For example: If a kid says "Look daddy, I tied my shoe all by myself!" And you see they didn't do it right, you should say "No, you didn't. That's not how you're supposed to tie it, silly. This is how you tie it."

You are still being just and honest by saying they did it wrong, but being tolerant by showing the child how.

[stephen_speicher]

That answered my question. Thanks. No, I do not see tolerance as opposed to justice. With kids, you can be brutally honest and tell them they failed, and be tolerant by explaining what they did wrong, why, and how to fix it. For example: If a kid says "Look daddy, I tied my shoe all by myself!" And you see they didn't do it right, you should say "No, you didn't. That's not how you're supposed to tie it, silly. This is how you tie it."

You are still being just and honest by saying they did it wrong, but being tolerant by showing the child how.

Okay. But I do not think "tolerant" is quite the right word to express what you want. To "tolerate" usually means to endure, to put up with, as in bearing some pain or hardship. I experienced the process of my son learning to tie his shoes as one of a million delights , and any time or effort I expended in helping was given freely with joy. And, like most of these learning processes, I was almost always rewarded in the end with more than I put in. A child is the closest thing to violation of conservation laws, where you can get out even more than you put in!

Incidentally, I see from your "Introduction" post that you are a tenth grader. I must say you are quite articulate and coherent for your age. Welcome to Objectivism, and welcome to this forum.

p.s. I do not think that my first response to a mis-tied shoe would usually be "No, you didn't," even when followed with the other clarifying remarks. Young children often process the first words that are said and sometimes do not integrate that with the rest. Better to first accentuate the positive aspect of what they accomplished, and then help in correcting whatever needs to be done. It is still being "just and honest," but emphasizing the positive rather than the negative.

[realitycheck44]

Okay, by your definition, tolerant was not the right word. I can't really think of any other one that would convey what I mean. If you do please let me know.

Thanks for the compliment and the advice later in life.

[RadCap]

There appear to be two false premises being expressed here. The first is that somehow Dagny was being too 'harsh' with those she worked with. Specifically, Dagny is being characterized as impatient and intolerant and one who beats employees etc down with criticism. She is being depicted essentially as 'not nice' - that her actions to her employees and others are somehow inappropriate and distasteful. Put simply, the implication is that her actions are unjust - that they are *not* deserved.

On what basis does one draw these conclusions? Do you have any examples of Dagny acting inappropriately to an employee - ie do you have any examples of where her response, her treatment of others, is not deserved by the actions or words of those others - and thus should have been different?

This supposed distasteful behavior is then contrasted to the behavior one 'learns' when raising children. Acceptance of failure, teaching, niceness towards inability, tolerance for lack of intelligence - are all provided as preferable alternatives to the previously identified intolerant, mean, condescending behavior Dagny supposedly exhibits. (I identify these characteristics by the connotation of the words you have chosen to represent each of the attitudes. Dagny's attitudes are consistently identified by terms commonly held as negatives, whereas the childrearing attitudes are consistently identified by terms commonly held as positives.)

Again, do you have examples of Dagny's behavior which you think should have been different? Are there instances you can point to in AS where she should simply have accepted failure? Are there instances where she should have tolerated the knowledge of those who knew less than she did? Are there instances she should have coddled those who could not perform as required?

--

Now this false premise is created by another, more fundamental false premise: that rational adults should be treated the same as children whom have not yet fully developed their rational faculty. In other words, essentially one should treat a 25 yr old the same way one treats a 5 yr old. Obviously one does not properly do this. But why? The answer is equally obvious - one does not treat those in possession of a rational faculty as if they did NOT possess that faculty. Yet ultimately that IS the premise being asserted here: that the behavior of a parent to a child is 'better' or 'more appropriate' - ie more 'just' - than the behavior Dagny exhibits towards her employees.

Put simply, the underlying premise here is that one should not treat adults AS adults, but as children instead.

If you believe this is true, I would be curious as to your reasons why. If you do not believe it is true (as I suspect is the case, since I do not believe you treat 5 yr olds and 25 yr olds the same), then you need to discard this faulty premise, and the erroneous premises to which it leads.

--

"While discussing the book,my mom (an engineer) said she used to be much more like Dagny, but having children has made her much more benevolent towards others."

Have you asked your mother specifically why she now treats adults more like they are children than she used to?

"I don't know if having children can have that much effect on someone's attitude."

Apparently it can, since you report that your mother admits she has undergone such a change. The questions you need to ask yourself are: "why did the change occur?" and "are the reasons for that change valid?" So again, I would suggest you ask your mother why she treats adults differently now. After learning her reasons, you may decide for yourself whether they are valid or not.

--

Concerning raising children in general, you asked a few interesting questions:

"what would have happened if [Dagny] had kids?

"Would she do favors for them, like cooking even if she was tired?"

"Would she take off work to watch their sports games?"

I believe Elle had a very good response to you. Raising children is akin to a job. It requires a long term dedication, specialized knowledge, and a love of what you are undertaking. The situation you posit is similar to someone taking on two jobs at once. Given that context, you may be able to grasp (and answer) your own questions better.

"what would have happened if Dagny had taken on another job?"

"Would she do what is required of that second job, even if she was tired?"

"Would she devote herself to tasks in just to one job, or split her time between the two jobs she had chosen to do?"

I think the answers to your questions are much easier to determine when you think of the proposition in this fashion (and of course I am not trying to say raising a child is exactly the same as doing one's job. It is not. But the principles involved are the same - as they should be with any action one takes. The difference is the degrees involved.)

The choices one face when trying to pursue two careers at once can be very difficult. Trade offs will have to be made in both jobs. But, because one has *chosen* to split one's focus in that fashion, one has knowingly accepted the responsibility of MAKING those choices, difficult or not. That is why one does not choose to pursue such dual and/or divergent goals lightly.

It is the same with raising children. By deciding to have a family, one knowingly accepts the responsibility of making choices between one's job and one's family. Of course the decisions are that much harder to make because the choices are between things of very great value to one's self. And again, that is why one does not lightly choose to pursue a career and a family at the same time.

By realizing these facts - that one knowlingly chooses to pursue these two very demanding avenues - one realizes the time and energy devoted to each will not be the same as would have been devoted to just one or the other. One realizes that one will have to make difficult choices between the two in the future. But with this knowledge, one avoids the notion that one is having to 'sacrifice' one's family to one's profession - or vis versa. One avoids the idea that one is having to choose between being selfless or selfish, because one has selfishly *chosen* to pursue BOTH at the same time, with ALL the potential benefits and risks - profits and losses - that entails.

[stephen_speicher]

Okay, by your definition, tolerant was not the right word. I can't really think of any other one that would convey what I mean. If you do please let me know.

I cannot think of a single word which captures what, in fact, is a complex thought. The context of dealing with children is not the same context as dealing with adults. Whereas we might find certain actions by an adult to be intolerable, as parents we must be patient enough to allow a child to grow. It is not so much that we "tolerate" the child's lack of skills and understanding, but rather that we recognize that the child is in the process of learning for the first time and we are willing to put forth whatever effort is needed to help. It is probably some combination of patience, empathy, and love that captures this. Patience to allow the child to grow and learn from mistakes; empathy to put yourself into the position of the child; and love to explain the pleasure that makes it all worthwhile.

[realitycheck44]

No, I do not think that Dagny treated employees or anybody else in a manner they did not deserve. After re-reading my statements, I see how you could get that impression. That is not what I meant at all. I will try to write more accurately in the future.

I also agree that the context of judging adults is in no way the same as judging children, but you asked for specific examples where “she should have tolerated the knowledge of those who knew less than she did. I was going to say that she should not have tolerated those people, but taught them the knowledge she had. However, I just realized while writing this that she would have taught a person who would have been willing to learn and acted on the knowledge they would have learned from her. I had forgotten how incompetent and unable to make decisions her employees were.

In regards to my mom, I ended the question as I did because I was questioning the validity of her statement. I did not know her before she had kids; I have no idea if she really was like Dagny Taggart or not. I was wondering if you guys thought a change was possible. By a change, I mean she is much more benevolent toward others (not that it’s a good thing). For example, she will go way out of her way to pick up or give one of my soccer teammates a ride home if no one else can or will. She gives favors without expecting anything in return. I honestly myself cannot see how such a change is possible and simply wondered what others though. I intend to ask her those questions tomorrow because she went to bed.

I would like to say that it is great to have my ideas challenged and premises checked. Intelligent discussion is hard to find sometimes and I am really glad that I joined this website.

[RadCap]

Glad you are ejoying the site and the conversation.

you asked for specific examples where “she should have tolerated the knowledge of those who knew less than she did. I was going to say that she should not have tolerated those people, but taught them the knowledge she had. However, I just realized while writing this that she would have taught a person who would have been willing to learn and acted on the knowledge they would have learned from her. I had forgotten how incompetent and unable to make decisions her employees were.

Not just that. Remember, when one hires someone else to do a job, one expects that they know how to do they job they say they are capable of doing and have agreed to do. There is no reason to tolerate those who claim to be capable of such work but in fact are not capable of doing so (which is preceisely why people are fired from their jobs). In other words, unless otherwise indicated, the job of an employer is not to teach an employee how to do his job.

In regards to my mom, I ended the question as I did because I was questioning the validity of her statement. ... I was wondering if you guys thought a change was possible.

Yes, it is possible for someone to change their behavior - for better or for worse. And such a change would be the result of a change in premises (explicitly or implicitly). You provide an example of the type of current behavior of your mother, and characterize it in a way that sounds altruistic. So it seems you are suggesting (or at least she asserts) she was previously egoistic and has now become more altruistic - or from better to worse. Well, it is quite possible for someone to change their ethical base, for a number of different reasons (from faulty original premises to tramatic events resulting in reassessment of premises, etc). Since we do not know your mother, while we can say it is quite possible for her to have changed in the way you describe, it would be impossible for us to say what caused that change. Thus it is good that you are going to ask her directly, as you indicate below.

I intend to ask her those questions tomorrow

Good luck with your search for answers.

[stephen_speicher]

By a change, I mean she is much more benevolent toward others (not that it’s a good thing).

In general, I think that benevolence is a "good thing." It is a natural consequence of a rational, selfish person with a healthy psychology and a good sense of life.

For example, she will go way out of her way to pick up or give one of my soccer teammates a ride home if no one else can or will. She gives favors without expecting anything in return.

There is nothing that says that all trades we make with others must have immediate cash value for us. There could be a multitude of good and proper reasons that motivate your mom to be so helpful to you and your friends. Her actions, as you describe them, do not necessarily imply altruistic behavior on her part. If you want to know what motivates your mom, ask her. Both of you might learn something in the process.

On a personal note, I am very sympathetic to a truly benevolent parent, one who extends her benevolence to her child and beyond to his friends. I firmly believe that most people should not have children in the first place. If you cannot devote the time and effort to make a loving benevolent world for your child to grow up in, if you cannot meet the child's intellectual, emotional, and practical needs with all that the child deserves, then better not to have a child.

Over the years my home, and my self, was a haven for several friends of my son, good and decent children who did not get what they deserved from their own parents. And here I do not mean some low income family, some "underprivileged" kid. I will never forget one of my son's friend, let's call him Ken. Ken's parents were multi-multi-millionaires, and he lived in a mansion with all the trappings that a kid could dream of. Still, he preferred our relatively more modest home to play in because of the attention he got from my supervision.

My son and I had a regular date for most Saturdays; we would go to the beach area where we would first ride our bikes on an adventurous pathway, play paddle ball on the courts, shop the little stores nearby, play on the sand digging huge holes and tunnels, and swim and surf to our heart's content. We invited Ken along on one of these usual Saturday outings. Ken fit in real well when we played at home, and indeed he fit in well at the beach. On the way home, my son and Ken sitting in the back seat of the convertible, hands outstretched catching the wind, Ken told us that this was the greatest day of his life. I fought back the tears, partly in joy that Ken enjoyed us and the day just as we did, and partly in sadness that for Ken, an ordinary day of our life, was the greatest day he had ever had.

So, if you ever wanted to know why sometimes I too would go out of the way for Ken, all you would have to do is ask.

I honestly myself cannot see how such a change is possible and simply wondered what others though.

Since we are volitional all sorts of changes are possible in people. And, keep in mind, there is little in life to compare with the changes that having a child can help bring about.

I intend to ask her those questions tomorrow because she went to bed.

Good.

[RadCap]

Stephen

Thanks for explaining the other half of the equation. I briefly toyed with the idea of pursuing that line, but decided others could do it better (which is why I dealt solely with rc's characterizations of behavior in relation to the question of change).

Thanks for proving me right.

[realitycheck44]

"In general, I think that benevolence is a "good thing." It is a natural consequence of a rational, selfish person with a healthy psychology and a good sense of life."

Yes, I agree with that too; however, when the benevolence becomes a sacrifice of things that you value more, it is no longer selfish and beneficial to you. Then it is a sacrifice, which one should never have to do because you should always choose what you value more. Too many parents today do things out of a sense of duty rather than a sense of love for their child(ren).

After talking to my mom I realized she is just as selfish and rational as before, she just forgot that the pursuit of happiness can include compromising and being doing things not always for you.

I also agree with RadCap saying it is not the job of the employer to teach employees how to do a job. That is true right now, but my impression of Atlas Shrugged was schools and universities were teaching the "whole math" concept and garbage like that. If Dagny would have seen a rational, able mind struggling to overcome the skepticism thinking, I believe she would have tried to teach the person (if they weren't already inducted into John's Gulch), such as Hank Reardon would have done his best to teach "Non-Absolute".

Edited September 14, 2005 by softwareNerd