Altruism or not? Some extreme cases.

[Adrian Roberts]

I am new to Objectivism, though I realise now that I have believed many of it’s principles for many years. I posted about myself in the Introductions section a couple of weeks ago.

 

I want to pose a couple of situations to test the limits of ethical selfishness, of living without Altrusim. I can see that Altrusim (as defined by AR) is an imposition on the human spirit. I suspect the reality is that most people make most decisions according to their own self-interest in any case, even if their reasons are subconscious or mixed, or they don’t like to admit it. But there are two scenarios that I can think of, at the limits of human experience, and which most of us will never have to endure, when it would seem that self-sacrifice is inescapable, and generally considered admirable.

 

I must stress that I am not arguing against Objectivsim here, or even trying to be Devil’s Advocate; I am just trying to see what are the thoughts of Objectivist thinkers about these extreme cases.

 

The first situation is about War. This always has the expectation that a person will at least put their life, their pursuit of happiness, on hold for the duration, and will risk losing it altogether. War is always tragic, but it is a fundamental part of the human psyche, a universal meme, which provides many of the myths which give us our identity. The freedom for a Man to be an End in Himself has been bought in blood. The Medal of Honour or Victoria Cross hero who sacrifices his life to protect his comrades, or who tries to rescue wounded comrades under fire, is part of our heritage. We could consider as an example the American War of Independence. I am British but I am not trying to be provocative here, just trying to think of a example of a war which most people reading this would agree had to be fought. The concept of the Hero does in any case tie in with AR’s concept of Man as a Romantic and Noble being – there is nothing romantic about war, but there can be about individual acts. Does this sacrifice count as Altrusim, and if so is it to be deplored?

 

The other situation is more common for those of us who live comfortable safe lives. Some of us have to dedicate our lives to looking after children with cerebral palsy or learning difficulties, or parents with dementia. In my work, I meet people who have no time or money for anything in their lives other than looking after a son with schizophrenia, or a spouse with intractable depression. If we believe in limiting the role of the State, then it is going to be down to the relatives to look after them. Is their life Altruistic, and is there any alternative?

 

Perhaps the only answer to challenges such as these is to make the most of our own lives, to pursue happiness, while we still can, so that the sacrifices of others is not in vain.

[Repairman]

Adrian Roberts,

Addressing the subject of war is a complex matter. One must assume that the cause(s) for which a nation goes to war are just. I have never been in military service, let alone a war, but from my observations gathered from men who were, some feel a lingering sense of loss from their comrades taken in combat. I don't know if any of them suffered what is known as "survivor's guilt." You, being in the psychiatric profession, must be somewhat familiar with this term, perhaps even familiar with people who've experienced this. What this suggests to me is that the bond between soldiers, forged in their shared experience, transcends their otherwise normal sense of individuality, and forms a sense of unity would certainly require deeper study. I am not qualified to venture any theories as to the deeply seated sense of unity forged among front-line soldiers. But as I've learned from my reading in Objectivitist literature, the extraordinary experience of being faced with losing someone, such as a brother-in-arms, may result in a momentary decision of self-sacrifice. It goes without saying that wars bring on extraordinary situations, and a sense of collective behavior must be accepted by soldiers, if they are to be an effective fighting force. But without expanding this post into a broader discussion about war, let's just say that it may be a human trait that our compassion for others sometimes results in actions that others interpret as heroic. Fortunately, war is not a normal state of affairs for our world, and let's hope that one day the knowledge of the experience of wars are that which we read in the history books.

As for caring for a disabled family members, I have no comments on extreme cases of highly dependent people. However, I had an older sister who had lost the use of her legs at the age of eighteen. Our family, not of upper-middle income, did make adjustments so that she could adapt to her new challenge. She completed two college degrees, held a job for the remainder of her life, married and died shortly before her daughter's wedding. She never collected any direct government benefits, until weeks before her final days. We were raised to endure and suffer any hardship by our own merit. I cannot tell you what went through my parents' minds at that time, but it was a source of tension. They, and my sister, had made a commitment to seek the best outcome of an unfortunate situation.

I hope I've shed some light on the subject.

[StrictlyLogical]

Adrian:

 

All "self-sacrifice" is a form of altruism.  One cannot distinguish between purported types of self-sacrifice some of which are and some which are not altruism.

Altruism is "otherism".  Any act which is a rational voluntary trade, is one which is taken because the trader values what he receives (be it love, money, knowing something will happen etc.) more than what he spends (be it time, effort, money, his life etc.).  If the value he receives is MORE to him, then it is NOT altruistic and not a sacrifice.  If the value he receives is LESS than what he spent, then such would be a sacrifice and hence an example of altruism if made with full awareness (arguably one cannot be altruistic if one is not aware of the "bad" deal one is making).

You use the term "ethical selfishness".  Objectivism holds that rational self-interest is the definition of "ethical".

The following are from the view that "ethical action" is precisely that which is rational and in the individual's self interest. 

Actions in war can be based on rational egoism.  Consider a person who has decided to volunteer to go to war because they believe it is in their interests to act to defend their property, their family, their freedom, and possibly their very lives, from foreign aggressors.  This is not altruism.  Wars are not fought by single men engaging in one-on-one combat.  Cooperation, teamwork, concerted effort is needed.  If a man's rational self-interest requires he attempt to save four other men, as he assesses the risks/benefits to further his aim to push back the invaders by the greatest amount he can cause through his action, he should make the attempt.  If he dies in the attempt, he is not a hero because he died or because his immediate aim was to save other men, it is because he took action in furtherance of his rational self-interest, and had he succeeded and lived, his heroism would not be diminished in the slightest.

As for the choice to dedicate much of one's life and resources to a child who has extreme difficulty, this is not altruism if the child is a higher value to the caregiver than the effort, resources, etc. spent.  All things of value generally require some effort to gain or keep.  A house, a plant, a pet, a career, a sports-car.... If one values the thing enough to rationally spend the effort, time, money etc. in order to enjoy it, then there is no sacrifice.  If one voluntarily chooses one value over another due to limited resources, it is not a sacrifice.  I have not sacrificed having a sports-car for the pleasure of living inside and being able to eat. If an object or aim is of lesser value than the resources which must be spent, it would be irrational (and a sacrifice) to expend resources for it.  [Keep in mind things do not have intrinsic value, having a house in the country may be worth 2 years working in a coal mine for one man while another would sooner move to a city slum to avoid ever having to set foot in a coal mine.]  So really it comes down to how much the parents, individually, value their child.  Do they cherish and love the child enough to work extra hours, spend more time at home with the child, etc.

If you would rather be travelling through Asia and South America instead of raising your son, what is stopping you from putting your son up for adoption?  Altruism is evil.  Raise your son if you want him, if you love him, but if you don't, for goodness sake give him up!

 

 

As for State intervention, the theft and gift of resources from one citizen to another, that is wholly immoral and really a separate issue.  That said, generosity is not a "sin" against self-interest if it does not cause hardship to oneself, and as importantly if the value of knowing the object of one's generosity benefited is of higher value than that given.

Parents have the option to appeal to others for help.  To raise money, seek assistance from family, friends, or others, on a voluntary basis.  The question which arises here is a sort of spiritual accounting: is your disabled son's happiness or comfort worth it to you to trade your "pride" (in a case where you wish you were wealthy enough not to have to ask for help but realize that as a matter of fact, you do need help) and your "pretense" which must be given up in order to honestly make your case and ask for help?

 

Generally on the concept of sacrifice of any kind Rand says it beautifully in Atlas Shrugged :

"If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty."

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by StrictlyLogical

[Tenderlysharp]

The perspective you take in any life challenge will give you energy or drain your energy. 

Regarding your best actions as a sacrifice will doom you to a world of hopelessness and despair. 

Knowing you have a choice puts the priority in a place of correct action. 

A man who feels helplessly drawn into war will not recover his efficacy, he will have no reason to fortify him against the horrors of war. 

A person who blames their helpless family members will not take the most productive action on their behalf. 

Is there a way to measure what sacrifices you didn't know you made? For an example a person with the potential to make a billion dollar invention. Is that family member or war worth more than a billion dollars to them? Could they have helped that family member or war front a billion times over if their time were spent in different ways.

If you think your life is over because you help someone, what does that do to your mind? What state of mind is going to give you the energy to believe you can have it all?

[Adrian Roberts]

Thank you all for these replies. They certainly help to give clarity to the subject, especially the concept of defining Altruism in terms of perceived value. Certainly what we give to the our country in times of war, or to charities, should be because we want to, not because we feel guilty if we don't. Giving to the Government is of course a more complex issue in a modern state where taxation is inevitable, but at least the Government should not have the right to demand more than the minimum necessary for it's functions - where to draw the line is a whole other debate.

Looking after a family member may be something that people feel resentful about but they know that their relative would not be cared for otherwise (the hat example). Many people would be shocked at the suggestion of putting your child up for adoption so that you can lead your own life. But most forms of Psychological Counselling would say that at the very least, we need to be wary of the "shoulds" and "should nots" that people accept without question.

In war, a soldier who risks or gives up his life to get a comrade out of trouble is probably going to be motivated by loyalty to his comrades rather than to the government or the reason for having the war in the first place. But he is still motivated by what he sees as a higher ideal, and of course in Western culture the giving up of your life is not the point; if you could rescue your comrade without getting killed, that would be the ideal outcome. Deliberately committing suicide as a form of warfare, because your emperor or your imam tells you to, is of course the ultimaite in altruism, and is what enlightened societies have to fight  to protect ourselves from.

Objectivism is encouraging me to re-assess many notions that I had never before questioned. At present I am thinking as I write,  which is why I may not have thought everything through properly.

[Eiuol]

52 minutes ago, Adrian Roberts said:

In war, a soldier who risks or gives up his life to get a comrade out of trouble is probably going to be motivated by loyalty to his comrades rather than to the government or the reason for having the war in the first place. But he is still motivated by what he sees as a higher ideal, and of course in Western culture the giving up of your life is not the point;

To draw out your thinking more, what's the higher ideal you're thinking of?

[Nicky]

On 12/16/2015 at 2:54 AM, Adrian Roberts said:

The other situation is more common for those of us who live comfortable safe lives. Some of us have to dedicate our lives to looking after children with cerebral palsy or learning difficulties, or parents with dementia. In my work, I meet people who have no time or money for anything in their lives other than looking after a son with schizophrenia, or a spouse with intractable depression. If we believe in limiting the role of the State, then it is going to be down to the relatives to look after them. Is their life Altruistic, and is there any alternative?

This is more of a political issue than a moral one. There's no need to debate whether it's moral for people to take care of the disabled. I'm not gonna disagree: I don't see it as a moral imperative to sacrifice for the sake of strangers (I'm not an altruist), but I do find it moral for family (including extended family) and friends to help each other, and, in many situations, even strangers.

However, what you're taking for granted here is that the only way for people to help each other is through the state: in other words, you're taking for granted the need for a political system based on forcing people to help each other. That is wrong: people don't need to be forced to help each other. You could help these people that you meet, and that need help, without any involvement from the government, couldn't you? You don't need special permission.

Even today, there are better private alternatives to ensuring care for a disabled loved one than handing them over to the government (state owned facilities are often neglectful and poorly run, private facilities are usually better). If the government got out of the business of helping people, private for profit and non-profit institutions (charities) would simply take over, and do the job much better.

 

[Jon Southall]

Strictly Logical,

A query regarding your notion that a parent should put up their son for adoption if they don't love them and would rather do something else.

Presumably that would be at the parent's expense?

Surely a parent has a responsibility to care for a child, a dependent, that they were the cause of - someone else might want to take this responsibility on, but if not, if to pursue what they want would mean sacrificing their child's life (which would be the outcome unless someone else steps in) they would be answerable for that.

Would you agree?

[StrictlyLogical]

I advocate no state imposition of "expense" or initiation of force of any kind.

I observe only in the context that literally everyone is better served, new and old parents and the child, when the child is raised by loving parents who value them.

[Jon Southall]

I completely agree with your last paragraph. 

I want to clarify whether you were advocating freedom to shirk parental responsibilities; when a parent gives up their child, who do they think will take care of him or her? Someone will have to and this will not be costless, so the parent should pay until the child is adopted. A judge would not be unjust in making such a ruling in my view - wouldn't you agree?

[Adrian Roberts]

23 hours ago, Eiuol said:

To draw out your thinking more, what's the higher ideal you're thinking of?

Three possibilities:

1] In a genuinely Just War, the only higher ideal likely to be valid would be freedom from some kind of oppression, so bad that the war was genuinely the only way out.  (roughly, Ayn Rand's view of when a government should sanction violence).

2] In reality, most wars are fought out of loyalty to a King or Leader of some kind, or because you think your nation or religion is better than all the others. They would have defined this as the higher ideal. Modern, enlightened Man rejects such notions and defines Right and Wrong in terms of Reason, and ideals such as Tolerance and Decency. But in most historic times, Right and Wrong was defined by Loyalty to country or religion - the English thinking it was ok to invade France because of Henry V's claim to the throne for instance, and in the Middle East today, ISIS have the same definition of what is the higher ideal.

3] A soldier in the middle of a battle will not give much thought to why he is fighting. He will be trying to get the job done, an his loyalty will be to his mates. So if he sees a wounded comrade lying in an exposed position, he may risk his life to save him. Perhaps I am being emotional here, but it is hard not to admire such courage, whatever your view of the reason why the soldiers are fighting; this is the higher ideal. I like to think it counts as non-Altruism in the way we discussed above; surely it must come under Randian ideal of Man as a Heroic being, achieving great things. For me, the ultimate hero of this type would be Captain Noel Chavasse, not a combatant but a Doctor in the Royal Army Medical Corps, and one of only three men to be awarded two Victoria Crosses, the first on the Somme in 1916; the second Posthumously the following year. I would find it hard to allow my recent interest in Objectivism to cause me to think the less of such men.

Edited December 18, 2015 by dream_weaver

[Adrian Roberts]

 

10 hours ago, Nicky said:

This is more of a political issue than a moral one. There's no need to debate whether it's moral for people to take care of the disabled. I'm not gonna disagree: I don't see it as a moral imperative to sacrifice for the sake of strangers (I'm not an altruist), but I do find it moral for family (including extended family) and friends to help each other, and, in many situations, even strangers.

However, what you're taking for granted here is that the only way for people to help each other is through the state: in other words, you're taking for granted the need for a political system based on forcing people to help each other. That is wrong: people don't need to be forced to help each other. You could help these people that you meet, and that need help, without any involvement from the government, couldn't you? You don't need special permission.

Even today, there are better private alternatives to ensuring care for a disabled loved one than handing them over to the government (state owned facilities are often neglectful and poorly run, private facilities are usually better). If the government got out of the business of helping people, private for profit and non-profit institutions (charities) would simply take over, and do the job much better.

 

A brief reply: True, we don't need permission from the government to help each other, but if it was left to individuals, will people who genuinely need help always get that help, and even if individuals wanted to help them, would they be able to? I can only speak for what happens in the UK; I don't know how these things work in the USA.  Here we take the state-run NHS for granted, and no-one complains too much about funding it: but most people choose not to think about the fact that the nation is bankrupting itself by funding it. In fact, the government is introducing public funding  in some sections of the NHS, but gets a lot of knee-jerk criticism for it "selling off the NHS". All too many vocal left-wingers would rather cut military spending, despite the fact that there is not much point having an NHS if we are being bombed by ISIS or by the Russians, and anyway defence spending accounts for less than 3% of government spending, and the NHS takes nearly 20%.

So, a massive hot potato with endemic non-rational thinking. It will take at least a generation before people accept your last sentence about private institutions doing the job better.

Edited December 18, 2015 by dream_weaver

[StrictlyLogical]

4 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

I completely agree with your last paragraph. 

I want to clarify whether you were advocating freedom to shirk parental responsibilities; when a parent gives up their child, who do they think will take care of him or her? Someone will have to and this will not be costless, so the parent should pay until the child is adopted. A judge would not be unjust in making such a ruling in my view - wouldn't you agree?

What kind of State are you advocating?  What is the proper role of government?

 

If a parent attempts to harm his or her child, certainly that must be prevented by a government, if it is a government which protects individual rights. 

 

If a parent tries to give a child away to an organization, a friend or a family member or another couple, what do you see as the role of government?  [In a free society no one can dictate to someone whether or not they can or should have sex or can or should give birth to a child... is any random person who has sex and carries a fetus to term have any greater claim to a right to the freedom to care for and raise a child than someone who is willing to voluntarily do so?]  

[Repairman]

On 12/18/2015 at 8:14 PM, Adrian Roberts said:

 

A brief reply: True, we don't need permission from the government to help each other, but if it was left to individuals, will people who genuinely need help always get that help, and even if individuals wanted to help them, would they be able to?

 

An economic social order cannot hold the needs of others as a priority over rights of people who've rightful possession of wealth. To guarantee through force that others needs will be taken care of will shortly lead to the confiscation of the property of the rightful owners. Of course, when others wish to contribute to the charity of anyone, whether they need it or not, it is always an individuals choice as long as it is voluntary. Some people simply have a greater sense of self-worth when they are making a difference in the lives of people they care for very much. Naturally, organizations could take up the cause of charity. However, large organizations often become corrupted as organizers control greater amounts of wealth. In addition, Objectivism holds that people should not be judged by their charitable generosity; if an individual chooses to give, that is his own affair, and others should regard it with indifference, just as they would any other mutually agreed transaction. Some people deserve little if any charity, and smaller organizations can be more selective. In theory, if more people were able to keep the wealth they've earned, rather than forced to part with it through taxes, more people would be able to help themselves, and the people they truly care for. In a truly free market economy, life would not be free of suffering. But then, neither would it be so in a command economy. It would merely be morally just.

[softwareNerd]

On 12/18/2015 at 9:14 PM, Adrian Roberts said:

... ... , but if it was left to individuals, will people who genuinely need help always get that help, and even if individuals wanted to help them, would they be able to?

What does it mean to "genuinely need help"? 

My guess would be that people would willing donate toward at least the basic maintenance of those who cannot provide for themselves through age or disability, and who also lack savings and relatives who can support them. I doubt this would be more than a tiny proportion of people in a modern, free-market economy. However, a lot more than basic meals, shelter, clothing and  healthcare could be defined as "needing [more] help". If we use absolute (as opposed to relative) measures, someone who is poor in the U.S. could be very well-placed compared to (say) a poor Somali. Does such a person "need help"?

[StrictlyLogical]

Jon Southall:

I look forward to your thoughts...

[Jon Southall]

Strictly Logical - see the "Emerging States" thread I started for the proper functions of government.

A child's biological parents are primarily responsible for the child's support, and should compensate a third party when they provide it instead.

With freedom comes responsibilty- people are free to have children through hedonistic behaviour if they choose, but with this freedom comes responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. In this situation it means having dependent children who require caregiving. No one else is responsible for providing caregiving to their children. 

The government would intervene when the rights of the child are not being respected and protected, as it ought to do in the case of any individual. I think it would include making the parent pay the party who is looking after their kids some form of "child support". 

[StrictlyLogical]

1 hour ago, Jon Southall said:

Strictly Logical - see the "Emerging States" thread I started for the proper functions of government.

A child's biological parents are primarily responsible for the child's support, and should compensate a third party when they provide it instead.

With freedom comes responsibilty- people are free to have children through hedonistic behaviour if they choose, but with this freedom comes responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. In this situation it means having dependent children who require caregiving. No one else is responsible for providing caregiving to their children. 

The government would intervene when the rights of the child are not being respected and protected, as it ought to do in the case of any individual. I think it would include making the parent pay the party who is looking after their kids some form of "child support". 

Jon:

 

[Let me preface this by stating my point regarding biological parents versus adoptive ones was simply to illustrate that a proper government does not choose who can and who cannot have children, and they also cannot choose who can or cannot adopt children.  Hedonism is completely beside the point and has nothing to do with my comment.]

 

You are implicitly relying on an impossibility to illustrate your point.  Like most statists who claim we need certain regulations for false hypotheticals, like "what if all bakers refused to bake bread at market prices?" or "what if everyone decided to charge more rent than what anybody could pay" etc.

You have implied the "what of no one wanted to adopt, care for, or contribute towards the care of a particular child"? impossible hypothetical.  [As an aside let me retort with a response which logically follows from the hypothetical actually being true - if in fact NO ONE on the planet, ALL of humanity (including yourself) were so uninterested and uncaring and so bereft of generosity so that NONE of any of our resources (including yours) would be voluntarily given toward the care of the child, on what basis SHOULD such a child be given anything?  It could not be self-interest, the Objectivists are not helping, it could not be altruism since the Christians and humanists aren't helping, it could not be for any reason, and besides no particular subgroup would even exist to force the others (who don't care) to help, as that would imply the people in the subgroup cared enough to force others...]

In a proper society a parent would be free to turn over the child holus bolus to someone else who is willing to take full responsibility.  In FACT there would be people willing and able to take that full responsibility.  In a proper society the state would not be able to frustrate this voluntary interaction not initiate by force, theft and wealth redistribution in service to so called duty.

"With freedom comes responsibility" is an insipid bromide IF you mean by "responsibility" anything other than "able" to rationally "respond", in the context in one's self interest, and if it means anything like unchosen or intrinsic duty.  The good is NOT altruism.

"Making a parent pay" when in reality a million other moral resolutions are possible, i.e. ones which do not involve initiation of force by government, would in fact be unprincipled and immoral.

State imposed "child support" is wrong.

 

SL

 

 

[Adrian Roberts]

Quote

An economic social order cannot hold the needs of others as a priority over rights of people who've rightful possession of wealth. To guarantee through force that others needs will be taken care of will shortly lead to the confiscation of the property of the rightful owners.

I realise that this is the Objectivist view, and in many respects it appears entirely reasonable. However, it is not easy to work out how to apply this to people in the real world who are disadvantaged by genuine poverty or ill-health. Given the situation as it now is, with these people having expectations of the government (I'm talking about Europe rather than the US), it will be very difficult for any government to dismantle the welfare state and remain electable.

The replies above by SoftwareNerd and Jon show some of the difficulties:
 

Quote

 

What does it mean to "genuinely need help"? 

My guess would be that people would willing donate toward at least the basic maintenance of those who cannot provide for themselves through age or disability, and who also lack savings and relatives who can support them. I doubt this would be more than a tiny proportion of people in a modern, free-market economy. However, a lot more than basic meals, shelter, clothing and  healthcare could be defined as "needing [more] help". If we use absolute (as opposed to relative) measures, someone who is poor in the U.S. could be very well-placed compared to (say) a poor Somali. Does such a person "need help"?

 

Quote

The government would intervene when the rights of the child are not being respected and protected, as it ought to do in the case of any individual. I think it would include making the parent pay the party who is looking after their kids some form of "child support". 

I work with people with long-term mental health conditions; who are almost all living on Benefits paid for by the taxpayer. Their need is genuine; is there any other way of providing for them?

Consider one example (I am disguising the details for Confidentiality reasons):

A young man jumped from a tall building in a suicide bid while depressed; he survived but is now paralysed from the waist down. So his original illness was not his fault; his injuries were self-inflicted but he was mentally ill at the time. He is not going to be able to work to support himself, and will need to be supported financially for the rest of his life. This is in the UK. Can someone tell me:

1] What would happen to this person if he lived in the USA at the moment - does he get his living expenses and healthcare paid for by the state, or by some other means, or not at all? I am asking what actually happens, not what Objectivists think should happen.

2] What do Objectivists think should happen to support this person? Should anything "happen"? Should he be supported? Some chapters in "Voice of Reason" talk vaguely about support from charities. Since I started writing this post, Strictly Logical has posted a reply "....there would be people willing and able to take this responsibility...", but in reality the person concerned needs something more definite in place immediately if they are not going to starve.

As I said before, I am sympathetic to the basic premises of Objectivism, but I am trying to see how far it can be stretched to fit the real world.

[softwareNerd]

9 hours ago, Adrian Roberts said:

Given the situation as it now is, with these people having expectations of the government (I'm talking about Europe rather than the US), it will be very difficult for any government to dismantle the welfare state and remain electable.

An Objectivist who wants to completely dismantle the welfare state overnight -- or even in the next few decades -- is absolutely un-electable (assuming people think he has a chance of carrying out his plan, and isn't running for town dog-catcher). 

The first step, is for a significant minority of people to think that the government's role in welfare should be very minimal. Today, there are a lot of people on the GOP side in the US or the Conservative side in the U.K. who say they want less welfare. But, if you push them on example after example, they will say that the government should play a role. Not just for the disabled, but for some children, for some poorer folk, for those who did not save for their retirement, and on an on. 

9 hours ago, Adrian Roberts said:

1] What would happen to this person if he lived in the USA at the moment - does he get his living expenses and healthcare paid for by the state, or by some other means, or not at all? I am asking what actually happens, not what Objectivists think should happen.

My guess is that the state would take care of him, probably far better than in most other countries in the world. Exactly what they get would vary from state to state, and their condition. I can give you some examples I am familiar with. A young boy in our neighborhood goes to a special school instead of the regular one, because of some type of mental retardation. A health-care aid comes over a few times each week and takes him for a walk, or takes him out to the stores etc, Another boy, in a similar state, but older, who lives near a friend in California has been put in a government program that places them in jobs that require simple assembly. The government pays much of their salary, and also provides transportation to and from work. they also organize various weekend events. Finally, they have a Uber-like service where the parent can call up and arrange free taxi service for any purpose whatsoever, with a single day's notice, as long as the kid is going somewhere... these are special cars with trained drivers, so the parent does not need to go along.   I also know of a case where an old guy had not saved enough and was being supported by family (no retardation here). He was admitted to a hospital and a few hundred thousand dollars worth of bills were covered. Then, the social-security worker interviewed the family and almost scolded them because they were eligible to receive $700 a month which they had not been claiming (from ignorance). Some people from Europe think that American poor die in the streets because health care is so expensive. The facts are quite different: the care ranges from zero in some cases, inefficient in others, and 4-star treatment in serious cases.

 

9 hours ago, Adrian Roberts said:

2] What do Objectivists think should happen to support this person? ... ...

... ... in reality the person concerned needs something more definite in place immediately if they are not going to starve.

I think you'll find that Objectivists will be close in answering what should happen to such a person in the long run, but not immediately. My personal view is this: immediately... nothing. My personal view is that some transitions will be extremely quick while others will take decades. However, I consider this to be a bit of an academic exercise, because I do not think you and I are going to be confronted with the need to make such a plan in our lifetimes (no matter how young you are).

[Jon Southall]

Strictly Logical,

Your response has annoyed me. I've posted here long enough for you to know I'm not an altruist or a statist, I feel like you know there are problems with your unqualified comment and are trying to wriggle out of it.

Is it ok to abandon your kids on others because you would prefer to go off and travel? You are saying yes. I'm saying that is irresponsible.

Someone makes the choice to have children, then they have to live with their choice. It might be a bad choice for them, they may regret it but if they made it freely then they are responsible for it.

Rights automatically carry with them responsibilities. What does your property right mean if no-one has a responsibility to respect it. What does a contract mean if no-one is responsible for keeping up their end of the deal? You seem to have an attitude of someone else will take care of it, it's not my job. Who is John Galt?

The position you are taking is inconsistent with a way of life that recognises inalienable rights, its inconsistent with a community that respects and protects them. What you are proposing is hedonism whether you realise it or not - if it feels better then that makes it right. Anyone who understands Objectivism will not opt for the hedonistic approach, knowing in the scheme of things it is self-defeating.

I was hoping you would qualify your comment, I am disappointed you've turned it into this.

[softwareNerd]

15 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Someone makes the choice to have children, then they have to live with their choice. It might be a bad choice for them, they may regret it but if they made it freely then they are responsible for it.

Yes, parents have responsibilities toward children and some should be legally enforcable (aka at gun-point). 

However, the exact nature and scope of such responsibilities is a pretty complex topic and I think it is a "borderline" example with respect to this thread. Discussing what would happen to an orphan is more the focus of this thread.

Also, try to brush off analysis that brands you a red-statist when it spots some lipstick on your collar  . And, yes, I've been guilty of making similar accusations too, so accept my apologies. 

Edited December 20, 2015 by softwareNerd

[StrictlyLogical]

4 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Strictly Logical,

Your response has annoyed me. I've posted here long enough for you to know I'm not an altruist or a statist, I feel like you know there are problems with your unqualified comment and are trying to wriggle out of it.

Is it ok to abandon your kids on others because you would prefer to go off and travel? You are saying yes. I'm saying that is irresponsible.

Someone makes the choice to have children, then they have to live with their choice. It might be a bad choice for them, they may regret it but if they made it freely then they are responsible for it.

Rights automatically carry with them responsibilities. What does your property right mean if no-one has a responsibility to respect it. What does a contract mean if no-one is responsible for keeping up their end of the deal? You seem to have an attitude of someone else will take care of it, it's not my job. Who is John Galt?

The position you are taking is inconsistent with a way of life that recognises inalienable rights, its inconsistent with a community that respects and protects them. What you are proposing is hedonism whether you realise it or not - if it feels better then that makes it right. Anyone who understands Objectivism will not opt for the hedonistic approach, knowing in the scheme of things it is self-defeating.

I was hoping you would qualify your comment, I am disappointed you've turned it into this.

Jon:

 

You say you are not a statist or an altruist yet you are advocating state initiation of force based on what? ... altruism.

This is not a discussion about whether the person who DOES NOT value their child has a proper set of virtues and whether they are moral.  I personally find such a person reprehensible, but that is immaterial.  If you are a criminal, an evader, a second hander, an idiot, a mystic... I would advise you to give up your kids, not FOR your enjoyment say travelling the world, but FOR the small modicum of self-interest served by knowing your children would safer, better raised, and more loved elsewhere.  Of course in a real situation where I know and care about you I might try to persuade you to see the value and love you have for your children (if you have any).... but the effectiveness of such an approach has its limits.

My comments above do not "advocate" hedonism, it refutes statism. [Note, I am not advocating State removal of your child from you either... even if you did NOT love them and "kept them" ONLY from a sense of guilt and DUTY... it would be a reprehensible situation but only persuasion would be the correct approach unless you were visiting some real harm upon your kids, in which case a proper government would act]

Objectivism DOES NOT advocate ENFORCEMENT of virtue or morality.  Capitalism is the opposite of Statism.  Enforcement of so called "responsibility" which frustrates voluntary action when such voluntary does not constitute initiation of harm or violation of rights, is wholly wrong.

MY POINT, is that the child has a right to be adopted, and the potential adopters have a right to adopt, and the STATE has NO RIGHT whatever to interfere if you decide to give them up.

[You speak of "responsibility", recall parties to a contract, who have made contractual promises, have the right to nullify and void a contract.  Certainly in a case where all parties have chosen such voluntarily action to terminate the contract it would be WRONG for a state to prevent such a thing.  This of course does not change the fact that parties can and should go to the state for enforcement or remedies in the face of a breach of contract if they voluntarily choose to do so.]

I do not mince words or "wriggle".  No wriggling here mate.

You seem to forget what the Objectivist ethics and politics are based on.  When speaking of this subject, and your appeal to "rights" automatically "carrying" "responsibilities" smacks like intrinsicism which makes me question your epistemology.

In any case, if you want to use a term such as "responsibility", it is perhaps the "moral responsibility" of a parent to reasonably ensure their child does not come to harm, and is cared for while in their care.  That "moral responsibility" CAN be voluntarily given to another party and the state has no right to screw things up.

 

Cheers

SL 

 

Edited December 20, 2015 by StrictlyLogical
clarified "moral responsibility"

[Adrian Roberts]

Softward Nerd
 

Quote

 

An Objectivist who wants to completely dismantle the welfare state overnight -- or even in the next few decades -- is absolutely un-electable......

....Some people from Europe think that American poor die in the streets because health care is so expensive. The facts are quite different:...

 

Thank you for this. Clearly Objectivists have to start from where we are at present. And, yes, the media in Europe, particularly the populist left, does promote the view that in America the poor die in the streets.

I do have to think of this because of my job, working in the NHS, not just planning for my own future. Since looking at Objectivism, I have realised that I am attracted to it because of its emphasis on Individuality and Reason and Progress, and yet I have always lived with a contradiction in that I have subscribed to a knee-jerk approach that is completely against the idea of increased Private involvement in Healthcare, or anything else. Objectivism has encouraged me to at least be open-minded about this, especially as I have never had an answer to the looming black hole in NHS funding if we were to continue to expect money from the State via the taxpayer. It won't make me popular with my colleagues if I champion privatisation - and I shall still retire before any privatisation agenda can mess with my pension!

I wonder if Margaret Thatcher was an Objectivist? Certainly she would have been familiar with Alan Greenspan's thinking, and of course she was friend of Ronald Reagan. She started to break the power of the Unions and the Nationalised industries in the 1980s. She has been vilified and demonised for this ever since, and I'm afraid I was a part of that: I was in my 20s when she was in power, and so it was cool and trendy among students like myself to be negative about anything that she did. Her policies were gradually continued with under Tony Blair (nominally Labour, but actually to the Right of most pre-Thatcher Conservatives), and the current government under Cameron has an agenda to continue with Privatisation, but they dare not be open about it.

Can any UK readers comment? Jon?

[Repairman]

2 hours ago, Adrian Roberts said:

I wonder if Margaret Thatcher was an Objectivist?

She did have a private audience with F.A. Hayek, one of the great advocates of what is known as "Austrian Economics", and a champion of free-market theories. I can't tell you if she had ever heard of Ayn Rand.