Objectivism and Children

[DrSammyD]

So I was wondering how Objectivism deals with children. How does Objectivism allow that parents are able to use force in order to force their children to do things But at the same time say that those children still have rights that the parents can not violate such as killing them or neglect if at all. Also how does it force the parents to take care of the child or at the vary least ensure that it is taken care of e.g. orphanages, adoption if it does at all require those things.

Edited December 11, 2008 by DrSammyD

[DavidOdden]

How does Objectivism allow that parents are able to use force in order to force their children to do things But at the same time say that those children still have rights that the parents can not violate such as killing them or neglect if at all.

I don't believe that Objectivism has anything specific to say about that question. Did Rand actually say anything about disciplining children? By own position is that this derives from the fact that the child has between absolutely no and somewhat impaired ability to reason (it changes with time). A newborn cannot reason at all, and even a 3 year old has a very limited ability to integrate knowledge so as to reach a rational conclusion. Consequently, it is not always possible to use reason to guide the child's choices, and the parent therefore must make choices for the child.

Also how does it force the parents to take care of the child or at the vary least ensure that it is taken care of e.g. orphanages, adoption if it does at all require those things.

An underlying presupposition is that abortion is legal, so the existence of the child is a consequence of the parent's choice to allow this child to exist. From that it follows that the parent accepts a certain responsibility, namely the custodianship of the child's rights until it reaches an appropriate level of maturity where it is capable of exercising its rights on its own. One aspect of that custodianship is taking care of the child.

[Devils_Advocate]

So I was wondering how Objectivism deals with children. How does Objectivism allow that parents are able to use force in order to force their children to do things But at the same time say that those children still have rights that the parents can not violate such as killing them or neglect if at all. Also how does it force the parents to take care of the child or at the vary least ensure that it is taken care of e.g. orphanages, adoption if it does at all require those things.

Personally, I think parent's would be allowed to use force against their children in two situations: When they are very young, and their rational faculty is not fully developed, yet it must be shown to them that an action they've taken is wrong. Secondly, so long as the parent's house, feed, and clothe the children, they are allowed (to a certain extent) to use minimal amounts of force.

The second part deals with responsibility - parent's have taken up the responsibility of caring for a child, and must fulfill on their end of the contract. Contracts are sacred, and a parent giving birth to a child is just as much a contract as any. This obligates parents to take care of them. If a parent does not want to, is incapable of, or won't take care of their child, they can have them adopted. Private adoption firms, who will probably work largely the same as modern ones (I have no idea how that is), probably charging fees for the service. Children who are neglected can be seized by the Government, as the parent's have either broken their end of the contract or are inflicting physical force on them. The government will pay the fees for the adoption service.

On a side note, I think a lot of people reach maturity a few years before 18. I personally think that 18 is later to be designated as mature than necessary. 16 or 17 would probably be a better age. People who are not mature by then, won't be at 18. Not that there would be much dictation on when and when you are an adult in our LFS (Laissez-Faire State), just my personal psychological views.

[DrSammyD]

Firstly, if giving birth to a child holds them to a responsibility of caring for a child, would not also creating a child be the same, in that the act of conception forces the parent to take care of the offspring. In other words, if you say that it has a responsibility to the child after it is born, there is nothing magical that changes that says you don't have a responsibility to it before it is born, something that most Objectivists would say you don't have. So if you are going to say one you are forced to say the other.

Secondly, it is an implied contract that is created through an act, Something I'm not sure that Objectivism allows. We don't have implied contracts when we chose to live somewhere, such as having to pay taxes in Objectivism. How then do we have one here? The only thing I can think of is that creating a child is an act of force, and therefore binds you to a responsibility to it. But this would of course happen as soon as it was conceived, again something Objectivists don't agree with.

Also, I'd rather not just get into whether or not Rand said this or Rand said that. I'd merely like to stick to the tenants of what reason says. And this is obviously an ethical question, so I'm sure that Objectivism has something to say about it.

Edited December 12, 2008 by DrSammyD

[softwareNerd]

Firstly, if giving birth to a child holds...

If you use the search and you'll find threads with many hundred posts on the subject of children's rights and also on abortion. The subject has been discussed from every which way, and then some. Edited December 12, 2008 by softwareNerd

[DrSammyD]

Sorry, I'm not trying to start a thread on abortion, or children's rights. I was just using those things as examples to show how some of the things said weren't really compliant with established Objectivist reasoning. This is more towards people actually being obligated to their children to look after their well being, something I'm not sure that is legally required.

[RationalBiker]

Sorry, I'm not trying to start a thread on abortion, or children's rights.

But those are exactly the questions you brought up, in short order, as well as the parental obligation question which could be persused by searching as softwareNerd mentions. These have been much discussed topics and many posts may give you the distinction you do not see exists between a separate human being baby and a fetus (or less developed mass of tissue).

Edited December 12, 2008 by RationalBiker

[DrSammyD]

So, I've still only found an abortion thread. There is still nothing explaining why the parents still have an obligation after the child is born. I saw that the child doesn't have full rights yet and that was well explained but not the parents obligation after.

[DavidOdden]

This is more towards people actually being obligated to their children to look after their well being, something I'm not sure that is legally required.

Before addressing the legal question, you have to resolve the moral question. The obligation here falls under the realm of "responsibility for one's actions". A woman who becomes pregnant must take responsibility for her actions, by either choosing to abort the fetus and thus not bring into existence a person, who has rights, or by giving birth to the child which then entails other responsibilities. I suggest focusing on the concept of responsibility.

[DrSammyD]

What gives the right to the child the right to be cared for, since no one else has the same right? By not aborting the child, that is in itself an inaction. so how can an inaction lead to an obligation, especially if there is no means by which to abort the child, e.g. as objectivists so love to put it, on a desert island.

Edited December 12, 2008 by DrSammyD

[RationalBiker]

Rights and children.

Abortion.

Rights and children.

When I have time, I'll post more.

[DrSammyD]

I'm sorry RationalBiker, but these arguments usually stem from some weird argumentation about children's rights in the sense that they are not able to think for themselves. But one of the core tenants of Objectivism is that rights are derived from man's ability to think. Since these children are at or less than the cognitive abilities of a chimp, there is no justification to say that they have rights at all according to these arguments. Of course once they are at the capacity to think for themselves, well there would certainly be no justification for the parents to be responsible for the child at all, as they will have come into their full rights at that point.

Edited December 12, 2008 by DrSammyD

[JMeganSnow]

You're making the error of assuming that an undeveloped human is somehow identical to an animal--they are not, because an animal will *never* develop a rational faculty, whereas a human child *will*.

Rights for children are not established by saying "adult humans have rights because they have a rational faculty and children don't have a fully-developed rational faculty so they have no rights". Instead, the rights of children are established by saying "We know that adult humans have rights because our means of survival *requires* that we be free to utilize our rational faculty. In order for humans to survive, we ALSO must be cared-for when we are children, so the nature of human survival requires that adults who voluntarily bring children into the world commit to providing care for those children."

The principle here is survival by means of rationality, not rationality in a vacuum detached from survival.

Edited December 12, 2008 by JMeganSnow

[DrSammyD]

You're making the error of assuming that an undeveloped human is somehow identical to an animal--they are not, because an animal will *never* develop a rational faculty, whereas a human child *will*.

Rights for children are not established by saying "adult humans have rights because they have a rational faculty and children don't have a fully-developed rational faculty so they have no rights". Instead, the rights of children are established by saying "We know that adult humans have rights because our means of survival *requires* that we be free to utilize our rational faculty. In order for humans to survive, we ALSO must be cared-for when we are children, so the nature of human survival requires that adults who voluntarily bring children into the world commit to providing care for those children."

The principle here is survival by means of rationality, not rationality in a vacuum detached from survival.

No, that's the same exact bullshit that the pro lifers say. They say because there's the potential for rational thought in a fetus, a fetus *will* develop a rational faculty. In order for a fetus to survive it must not be aborted. But a fetus doesn't have rights. "To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable." -you know who.

edit: I know I said I didn't want to use her quotes in an argument, but this was just far too applicable for me not to.

Edited December 12, 2008 by DrSammyD

[JMeganSnow]

Watch it, bud, you're treading on thin ice now.

I *assumed* you had the wits to understand why a fetus is fundamentally different from a child--namely that a fetus is actually inside a woman's body. A child, however, is a separate individual and possesses the same *rights* as an adult, however since the child cannot yet *exercise* those rights it is *necessary* for an adult to exercise them on his behalf and to provide for the care of the child.

An adult *chooses* to bring a child into existence and thus assumes responsibility for that child until the child has the ability to exercise their own rights. That doesn't mean you can't transfer the responsibility to another adult if that person is willing, but finding *someone* to care for the child *is* your responsibility precisely because the child cannot yet exercise the rights it possesses.

We don't reason rationalistically here from floating ideas with no grounding, we look at reality and the actual requirements for human survival. Suppose you show me how it is not *necessary* for children to have care and how adults don't *choose* to bring those children into existence? If you don't want to assume the responsibility of childcare, don't have kids. It's just like saying "I don't want to assume the responsibility of a mortgage" . . . don't sign a mortgage then. But if you *do* enter into a voluntary responsibility like a mortgage or having a child, you can't thereafter just say "well, no one has the right to claim support from me so I don't have to pay off my mortgage or take care of my child". Responsibilities don't work that way. The baby is delivered to you and you must now spend 18 years paying it off, in a sense, just like you get the house right away but you have to spend 30 years paying off the mortgage.

The size of this responsibility is one of the reasons why it's so important for a potential parent to have EVERY opportunity of getting out of it before it's too late--and you can even usually find someone to take the baby off your hands once it *is* born should *that* become necessary.

[DrSammyD]

So if a fetus was a test tube baby, it all of a sudden has rights. How does location even begin to objectively matter when it comes to retaining of rights? This would have all sorts of implications, including never being able do scientific work with stem cells or medical advances with cloning organs. You wouldn't say that a tape worm isn't an individual organism because it's inside the female.

Also, I *assumed* you had the wits to understand why a Child is fundamentally different from an Adult-- namely cognition. Empirically it has no where near the same cognition, and less than some animals who don't have rights. Also, show me how a retarded person to live with out care, or a person with cancer or self inflicted gun shot wound. Nobody is required to help these people to survive.

And if it's the mere fact that you chose to bring a life into this world, why isn't the solution to kill it. That it has all ready been born is no real reason to prevent that from happening if you could already do it 2 minuets before hand. It would be much cheaper. No instead you require a costly and dangerous operation to be done before hand, and once again, on a desert island, you require them to punch themselves in the stomach, or use a coat hanger, whatever. There is no chance of a safe abortion happening in Africa. So you tell me what they are supposed to do there, and why Objectivism only allows an out for those fortunate enough to live near someone who is able to perform that operation especially because of something so arbitrary as an umbilical cord connection. You people keep arguing in a vacuum of America when real ethics applies everywhere, because in reality, that's what has to happen.

Edited December 12, 2008 by DrSammyD

[RationalBiker]

So if a fetus was a test tube baby, it all of a sudden has rights.

This is primarily why I won't re-engage the argument. If you don't agree with the arguments already presented in those threads, rehashing them again isn't likely to change things.

The only thing I can offer you is you might want to consider is what it means when Objectivism refers to the nature of man and how rights are derived from what man NEEDS to survive, based on that nature.

If you still don't agree, then just tell women it's morally okay to throw their babies or children in the dumpster if they don't want them.

[DrSammyD]

It either is or is not cognition that rights are derived from. If they are not derived from mans ability to think, than what is it? It then has to be derived from potential to think. If you say it's one of these, you have to accept that abortion is right and abandoning babies is right, or neither are right. If you don't think it comes from one of these things than you are patently not an Objectivist. That is the basis for all Objectivist ethics, cognition. I say it is Cognition, and therefore have no responsibility to those without it. If someone doesn't value that newborn, it is altruism in it's purest form to say that they are responsible for it. We already accept abortion, what is so wrong with infanticide that makes you so queasy about it. I'm sure you think I'm sick, but I'm only taking it one logical step further. Telling them they can dump their babies in the dumpster is exactly the same ethically as saying they can have an abortion. If I would have said they should get an abortion 80 years ago, I'd get the same reaction you think I'd get now with the dumpster.

Edited December 12, 2008 by DrSammyD

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

A woman can do what she wants with her own body.

After having given birth to a child a woman can still do whatever to her own body.

In other news, putting someone in a dumpster without their consent is an act of violence.

[Greebo]

A woman can do what she wants with her own body.

After having given birth to a child a woman can still do whatever to her own body.

In other news, putting someone in a dumpster without their consent is an act of violence.

So what you're saying, if I understand you, is that as long as the fetus is wholly dependent upon the mother for survival, the mother has the right to terminate?

Thus - if a fetus is viable and could and would survive outside of the mother, does that mean that termination is no longer an option, as the fetus could be cared for by someone other than the biological mother? (NICU, formula feeding, etc.)

[DavidOdden]

Since there is no further interest in the original question and this is degenerating into another abortion thread, I'm closing this at least until there is evidence that this thread can be brought back on topic. Posts on the abortion topic should be posted in an abortion thread.