Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How much education do we OWE our children?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

At the level of college education, your moral responsibilities have very little to do with children. There is nothing resembling a principle “you should pay for your child’s college education”. Perhaps the child needs a life lesson in finding their own means of survival; perhaps a college education would not be beneficial to the particular child; perhaps shouldering the cost would be self-sacrificial; perhaps the child will foreseeably become the next John Galt or Hank Reardon given an advanced education. Parents have to engage in a long-term cost-benefit analysis to determine what role they should play in their child’s higher education.

As for the dangers of woke Marxist propaganda, it is short-sighted to declare that you will never send a child of yours to such an institution. The alternative of sending them to Bible school is even worse, and there are slim pickin’s when it comes to Objectivist universities. If you feel that you have done a bad job of teaching your child to disregard irrational propaganda, that makes your balancing analysis harder. The analysis can be made easier if the child is dead set on a degree in social justice and community activism, and a career in destroying civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

When I enrolled at the University of Oklahoma in 1966, it was known around the state as a hotbed of communism. I was already a democratic socialist. None of that mattered. I wanted to study physics, and I did, and soft stuff paled into nothingness by comparison. I didn't become a communist. I didn't attend a football game. I studied physics and mathematics mainly. It was not for economic advancement. It was for love of the field and the good of my soul. I was woke, by the way, to the history of racism in the US against Black people. From our own family and the generation before, whom I knew. Racist, racist, racist—that was and is part of America. But in that era, we raised consciousness (to borrow a phrase of Marx, if I remember correctly) and together brought about a cultural and legal revolution in racial equality before the law and in inter-racial relations in America. I approve of that woke.

I said I didn't become a communist. I had become a socialist on my own, not by any knowledge of economics, but from the simple fact that the institution of private property allowed people to be selfish, and I thought that behavior to be morally wrong. My moral views were not without contradictions, and I had not really thought through the abolition of private property which I favored. That is where I was, when: there in college, underground, on my own, I read Ayn Rand. That changed my moral and social views, putting it mildly. I'm confident there are still plenty of state Universities and other Universities in which a young person can get a good education in physics, mathematics, and the many other marvelous areas of knowledge I was exposed to. And in Business too, which I was not exposed to. The day-to-day of what goes on there in learning and research, I'm pretty sure, is not the stuff that political interests in the wider society strive to highlight in their tidings of the doom of civilization due to colleges.

When I went to college, I spent my life savings from past jobs very soon. I was able to make some money from what was called the work-study program. I worked in the machine shop of he physics department. I was not eligible for a government-insured bank loan, because my father's income was above the cut-off level for the program. I had been raised by my father and his second wife; he was the sole bread-winner of that family. When came the time I needed his financial assistance to continue, he did not come through. (And unfortunately in those days, if you were not in college, you were eligible for the draft for Vietnam.) In a while, I had to drop out due to lack of funds. I was able to have a roof and buy food and cigarettes by monitoring alarms for a detective agency in the college town. Being out of college did not stop my studies, of course, just as today. I incline to agree with your first paragraph, David, notwithstanding the rough spot I got into with respect to my dream and young efforts for some previous years to get my own money to pay for it. 

My parents had been divorced when I was two years old. My mother, whom I had met briefly in late high school, learned of my situation and offered to help. In the years since they had divorced, she had learned to drive, got an education degree in a town near the little country town where she and my father had become high school sweethearts in the 1930's, and gotten a job as an elementary school teacher across the Red River in Texas. Without her assistance, I'd not been able to go to college and get a sound start on my way to the mind I have today. She was not under any legal obligation, and I should say she was not under any moral responsibility outside the opportunity for seeing me flourish to do what she did for me. She simply responded to my plight and potential and was a very good heart.

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

1. My child implies ownership...

It is only in the case of breach of contract or fraud that it is when this action( walking away) is "not allowed". So I tend to think that proponents of this responsibility see a sort of contract in place...

do I have the right to grab the child and run?

As I said in various places above, parental responsibility can be repudiated. It would be highly irrational to do so in response to the discover that infants defecate and need to be taught to use a toilet, but it’s not irrational to cut ties with an evil child

Questions of permission, contract and ownership are completely secondary to the fundamental moral question of whether a parent should repudiate their responsibility for some reason. Contract reflect only one tiny part of the concept of responsibility, and we’re not talking about the law right now, we’re talking about personal moral responsibility. But you still interject legal questions about rights and nabbing children who are being beaten. To repeat, moral responsibility and objective law are not the same thing. There do have a relation, but they are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

As I said in various places above, parental responsibility can be repudiated. It would be highly irrational to do so in response to the discover that infants defecate and need to be taught to use a toilet, but it’s not irrational to cut ties with an evil child

Questions of permission, contract and ownership are completely secondary to the fundamental moral question of whether a parent should repudiate their responsibility for some reason. Contract reflect only one tiny part of the concept of responsibility, and we’re not talking about the law right now, we’re talking about personal moral responsibility. But you still interject legal questions about rights and nabbing children who are being beaten. To repeat, moral responsibility and objective law are not the same thing. There do have a relation, but they are not the same thing.

Let's start from the base first:

Morally, can you own a child as property?  Can you dispose of it (kill it) as you wish?  If you lose it (misplace it or it runs away) do you have a moral claim on it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you saute a carburetor? No, because although it is possible to place a carburetor in a relatively small amount of fat and expose it to heat  a carburetor is not a food item and to saute is conceptually a food preparation.

At this point in the discussion I think a line between morality and legality has been established to show they are distinct concepts and an epistemological error akin to even attempting an answer to the question of sauteing a carburetor is at play.

ps, lol I didn't really answer the question , but I did, my drift will either be gotten or sue me

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Morally, can you own a child as property?  Can you dispose of it (kill it) as you wish?  If you lose it (misplace it or it runs away) do you have a moral claim on it?

A form of property can be many things. You can own a house outright, or you can rent it. It is your property in both cases. One is temporary with more restrictions than the other. I am not speaking legally, simply the issue of ownership as in possession, belonging.

Your life belongs to you. A consciousness that can create (a suitable life) and requires certain freedoms to do that. That goes for anyone that wants to live, amongst other humans.

"Can you dispose of it (kill it) as you wish? ", descriptively (as in not morally), yes you can. You are bigger, stronger and you can abandon. But should you?

If you love the child it is not to your benefit. The answer is easily "no".

I can argue that the child's right to live is the right of any human to live. In this case, an eventual adult's right. But it is not an adult. So when does a potential adult gain rights? Indeed, a child should not have the right to drive a car at 4 years old. Why? Because it will likely hurt someone (or itself).

But the desire to protect a child from hurting itself comes from the love and interest of adults around it. A child has some basic understanding of what rights are in the sense that it knows what belongs to it or not. It might be able to respect boundaries. The right to self-governance is given to it by adults ... slowly. But the fact is that children are cute. One feels empathy, compassion, etc. Some objectivists will bring up the "trader principle" as the reason for their value. I can see that as an attempt to ignore the emotional reasons.

But the caretakers are the possessors, the lovers, the protectors... as if protecting their own property—that which is theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2023 at 11:25 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

Let's start from the base first:

Morally, can you own a child as property?  Can you dispose of it (kill it) as you wish?  If you lose it (misplace it or it runs away) do you have a moral claim on it?

I disagree with the premise that this is the base. It is true that discovery of the nature of rights and morality in a social context is what led Rand to create Objectivism, but the resulting logical framework does not put rights at the base of morality. Existence qua man is the base. Questions of ownership, killing and “can” i.e. deontic principles follow from, and do not lead to, the proper moral foundation. Hence I have obstinately focused on that moral foundation, before moving on to the more legalistic question such as what role the government should have in protecting the rights of an individual.

Much closer to the base, IMO, is the concept of responsibility, and the related matter of repudiating responsibility. Of course, we do want to speed ahead to the interesting legal question of the role of proper government in evaluating permissible and impermissible means of repudiating responsibility, and also its role in determining the custodian of the rights of a person who is not fully competent. But before we identify a principle regarding governments, responsibility and rights-custodianship, we should identify a broader principle regarding government and responsibility (because any principle regarding rights-custodianship is controlled by a general principle about responsibility). Therefore, setting aside child education, we also want to know what are the principles governing tort law in a rational society? In the “dine and dash” continuum, when does the “customer” incur an enforceable obligation? What principle says when his responsibility is enforceable, and when is it ignoreable? I argue that it starts when he claims a table, but that’s a concrete example, and not a moral principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2023 at 7:39 PM, Easy Truth said:

I can argue that the child's right to live is the right of any human to live. In this case, an eventual adult's right. But it is not an adult. So when does a potential adult gain rights?

Are you holding that is possible that there is an age under which children do not have the right to not be imprisoned in dungeons, tortured, maimed, sickened or killed by their parents or guardians? Or that we need to prove from certain axioms that there is no such age?

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

Are you holding that is possible that there is an age under which children do not have the right to not be imprisoned in dungeons, tortured, maimed, sickened or killed by their parents or guardians? Or that we need to prove from certain axioms that there is no such age?

I hold that it should not be possible to torture an innocent child at any age. If you are on an island with multiple children and you see one wants to and will eventually kill another child, or maybe kill you when you are asleep, barring no other alternatives, you may have to kill the child.

But if you ask me why should an innocent child "not be harmed", I would not say it is because of the trader principle, or even that if we did that the human species would not survive. I would say it because it is disgusting to me. But I would like to have a clear argument that encapsulates "why", that is devoid of emotional attachment.

I would not want to be in the child's shoes, completely abandoned and defenseless. It is empathy, or perhaps the golden rule. It is to my benefit that I live in a world where people take into consideration how it affects others. They would take me into consideration too. That is the only argument I can think of right now.

As far as a repudiation of responsibility, kind of like "falling out of love". If there is no agreement, the agreement rule (contracts) can't be used. So you fell in love, and now you feel differently. When you fell in love, you promised yourself you would treat the person a certain way. Now you feel differently. Well, it will hurt the other person. Again the responsibility should be based on the consequences. If you walk away, what is the return on investment, what will you lose or gain, and what is to your benefit?

If so, then the child's rights become secondary. Descriptively, they have no say, no control, no leverage except for the pain you would feel if you did abandon them. I would say, they should not be abandoned because it would bother me. It feels bad. I don't like it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

one wants to and will eventually kill another child, or maybe kill you when you are asleep, barring no other alternatives, you may have to kill the child.

It is not in question that we recognize a right of self-defense or defense of others. When we say that people have a right not to be killed, the context is that they have a right not to be killed when they're not violating the right of other people not to be killed or terribly harmed.

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But if you ask me why should an innocent child "not be harmed", I would not say it is because of the trader principle, or even that if we did that the human species would not survive. I would say it because it is disgusting to me.

The only bases of rights to you are the trader principle and survival of the species? Based on earlier remarks, I take it that you think an adult has a right not to be killed. Is that based on nothing more than the trader principle and survival of the species? Or are there other non-emotional bases for the right of adults not to be killed?

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It is empathy, or perhaps the golden rule. It is to my benefit that I live in a world where people take into consideration how it affects others. They would take me into consideration too. That is the only argument I can think of right now.

Does that apply to adults also? The only basis you can think of for the right not to be killed is empathy?

4 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I would say, they should not be abandoned because it would bother me.

Aside from abandonment, do I understand correctly that your view is that the only reason that children (and adults?) have a right not to be killed is a principle of empathy?

Back to abandonment, if parents threw an infant unclothed into a garbage landfill in sub-freezing weather, the only moral condemnation you would have is "That bothers me"? And, moving past morality to legality, you would not vote to make such a thing illegal?

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

Aside from abandonment, do I understand correctly that your view is that the only reason that children (and adults?) have a right not to be killed is a principle of empathy?

The complication is around children, not adults.

 

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

The only bases of rights to you are the trader principle and survival of the species?

No.

 

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

Is that based on nothing more than the trader principle and survival of the species?

No.

 

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

Does that apply to adults also? The only basis you can think of for the right not to be killed is empathy?

No.

 

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

Aside from abandonment, do I understand correctly that your view is that the only reason that children (and adults?) have a right not to be killed is a principle of empathy?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

. . .

. . . I take it that you think an adult has a right not to be killed. Is that based on nothing more than the trader principle and survival of the species? Or are there other non-emotional bases for the right of adults not to be killed?

. . .

What do you think, Infra? What do you think is a correct basis of a right of an innocent human being not to be killed?

Do you think right bases of rights are emotion-free?

Rand took individual rights to rest on the circumstance that individuals are ends in themselves endowed with capability for autonomous thought and direction. Respecting rights of others is from recognition of that circumstance and the rightness of treating things as the kind of things they are. Layers of strategic-game consideration could be added to that in defense of respecting individual rights, but the fundamental is that each life is an end in itself. Do you think this basis for the right of an innocent human being to not be killed is a sound basis?

I think it is. Additionally, proper responsiveness to others (or to oneself) requires operational emotion. There are no human desires, valuations, or thought were all varieties of emotions unplugged. Just as there would be no thought as purported by Descartes in Meditations were it really possible, as he pretended, to unplug entirely from body inputs and sensory inputs.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Welcome to Objectivism Online, Infrabeat.

 

Edited by Boydstun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/28/2023 at 12:54 PM, DavidOdden said:

I disagree with the premise that this is the base. It is true that discovery of the nature of rights and morality in a social context is what led Rand to create Objectivism, but the resulting logical framework does not put rights at the base of morality. Existence qua man is the base. Questions of ownership, killing and “can” i.e. deontic principles follow from, and do not lead to, the proper moral foundation. Hence I have obstinately focused on that moral foundation, before moving on to the more legalistic question such as what role the government should have in protecting the rights of an individual.

Much closer to the base, IMO, is the concept of responsibility, and the related matter of repudiating responsibility. Of course, we do want to speed ahead to the interesting legal question of the role of proper government in evaluating permissible and impermissible means of repudiating responsibility, and also its role in determining the custodian of the rights of a person who is not fully competent. But before we identify a principle regarding governments, responsibility and rights-custodianship, we should identify a broader principle regarding government and responsibility (because any principle regarding rights-custodianship is controlled by a general principle about responsibility). Therefore, setting aside child education, we also want to know what are the principles governing tort law in a rational society? In the “dine and dash” continuum, when does the “customer” incur an enforceable obligation? What principle says when his responsibility is enforceable, and when is it ignoreable? I argue that it starts when he claims a table, but that’s a concrete example, and not a moral principle.

I did not mean a logical base... I meant a base or starting place for discussion.

Responsibility with regard to an "IT" is of a different kind (not just a different magnitude) from responsibility in respect of a "who".  That's why I raised a few silly questions about property and killing.

I agree, we are dealing with a responsibility (to a "who") and I like your example of dining and dashing, the responsibility (or not) to the people running the restaurant.  I also agree with the responsibility starting with "claiming the table".  Yes, it is a concrete example, but we are capable of abstraction here ... claiming the table is a positive act implying entering to a relationship with the restaurant owner as against all others.  It gives rise to expectations which are reasonable in the context and which conveniently allow everyone to dispense with "proclamations" of intent and agreement.  

Diner: I am sitting here because I intend to order and pay for food provided by the owner and expect to have possession of it for the duration of the meal.

Others: I understand that you and the owner are exercising a dining-meal providing custom, and I will not try to sit at your table or eat your food, or take your seat if you go to the washroom, i.e. the table is yours because you have claimed it temporarily as part of the exchange...

Owner: I see you sitting there to the exclusion of others who might buy a meal from me and I expect you will order a meal and pay me...

Of course this would be silly.  No one has to say anything because in the culture your positive actions speak to others your intent, which is tied up with unspoken agreements and expectations etc.  Stay outside the restaurant if you do not wish to send to signals of intent to trade for food...

 

As regards a "who" which is not an "it", your actions of caring for him/her and not giving him/her up for adoption, (in today's society there are plenty of people looking to adopt) is a "claim" (not of anything like a table...) that you are literally "taking responsibility" for the child.  The continual choice of not volunteering the child up to the care and custody of others tells the child and the others that "you got this" and you ARE intending and trying to provide for the child.  At some point a child (not being property) could choose to go with someone else if that responsibility were not being met... while at the same time if it were being met, others would best take the kid (if a misbehaving) back home to be properly schooled...etc.

How does one repudiate the unwritten expectation in the restaurant if by accident they sat down in one?  Leave ... before eating of course.  As for the child, if one does not want to be responsible, literally does not want to provide for a child, (which lack of want goes along with a lack of love) one has only to give it up for someone else to do so.

 

Leaving the specifics of university education aside.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2023 at 8:39 PM, Easy Truth said:

A form of property can be many things. You can own a house outright, or you can rent it. It is your property in both cases. One is temporary with more restrictions than the other. I am not speaking legally, simply the issue of ownership as in possession, belonging.

Your life belongs to you. A consciousness that can create (a suitable life) and requires certain freedoms to do that. That goes for anyone that wants to live, amongst other humans.

"Can you dispose of it (kill it) as you wish? ", descriptively (as in not morally), yes you can. You are bigger, stronger and you can abandon. But should you?

If you love the child it is not to your benefit. The answer is easily "no".

I can argue that the child's right to live is the right of any human to live. In this case, an eventual adult's right. But it is not an adult. So when does a potential adult gain rights? Indeed, a child should not have the right to drive a car at 4 years old. Why? Because it will likely hurt someone (or itself).

But the desire to protect a child from hurting itself comes from the love and interest of adults around it. A child has some basic understanding of what rights are in the sense that it knows what belongs to it or not. It might be able to respect boundaries. The right to self-governance is given to it by adults ... slowly. But the fact is that children are cute. One feels empathy, compassion, etc. Some objectivists will bring up the "trader principle" as the reason for their value. I can see that as an attempt to ignore the emotional reasons.

But the caretakers are the possessors, the lovers, the protectors... as if protecting their own property—that which is theirs.

I understand your equation of possession with ownership, and your idealization of property with that which you take possession of and value, but they are quite different concepts.

True property over a thing MEANS you have the absolute right to do with it as you wish (without harming others, or violating anyone else's right etc.) this MUST include the absolute right to do anything to or with it, to sell, rent, modify, etc. and/or destroy the thing.  A proper government could NOT prevent you from doing anything to your property including destroying it... because THAT is what DEFINES property which is yours.  A mere possession, or an ill-gotten thing owned by someone else, or anything subject to anyone else's rights, therefore cannot be your property.  This essential aspect of what property IS means no one else has any claim on it, and you do.

Now, of course you can own "bundles of rights" IN a thing, rights under a contract can be enforced.. rental agreements, rights of ways, licenses, etc and in that sense you can "have property" in things... but the things themselves (which you have SOME but not all rights in) are not your property.

 

In this sense, in the sense of what is at the heart of what differentiates property over a thing from any other type of mere possession, or merely having some rights in, is what makes it impossible for a person of any age to BE property in a proper society.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now we should aim to find the fodder for a proper law, since the spectre of legal enforcement of rights has been lurking at the edges. When you directly cause a financial loss to a person which they did not invite, you should accept that cause-effect relation and you should compensate them for their loss. If necessary, the government should require you to compensate for such a demonstrated loss. We don’t say that the loss only occurs when the customer starts to eat, perhaps it occurs when the meal is delivered, or plated, or when it is cooked – but these specifics are not part of the law, which is only about the general principle of loss, and compensation. The government integrates facts with specialized moral principles, a.k.a. laws, to reach a conclusion (“pay up”). The loss suffered by the business might be incurred at the point of requesting a table (making a reservation, for example).

Turning to repudiation of guardianship, your prior actions show that you have accepted the responsibility to be the custodian of the individual’s rights, which obliges you to do certain things. If you want to shirk that responsibility, you can if you do so in an orderly manner as specified by law. The proper concern of the government is whether there is a successor who accepts the responsibility. This need not directly involve the government, it means that if the question arises, you have to prove that there is a successor who accepted that responsibility in your stead. The gravity of being a custodian of rights is significant enough that I believe that an actual legal process should be required, just as real estate sales require legal formalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Now we should aim to find the fodder for a proper law, since the spectre of legal enforcement of rights has been lurking at the edges. When you directly cause a financial loss to a person which they did not invite, you should accept that cause-effect relation and you should compensate them for their loss. If necessary, the government should require you to compensate for such a demonstrated loss. We don’t say that the loss only occurs when the customer starts to eat, perhaps it occurs when the meal is delivered, or plated, or when it is cooked – but these specifics are not part of the law, which is only about the general principle of loss, and compensation. The government integrates facts with specialized moral principles, a.k.a. laws, to reach a conclusion (“pay up”). The loss suffered by the business might be incurred at the point of requesting a table (making a reservation, for example).

Turning to repudiation of guardianship, your prior actions show that you have accepted the responsibility to be the custodian of the individual’s rights, which obliges you to do certain things. If you want to shirk that responsibility, you can if you do so in an orderly manner as specified by law. The proper concern of the government is whether there is a successor who accepts the responsibility. This need not directly involve the government, it means that if the question arises, you have to prove that there is a successor who accepted that responsibility in your stead. The gravity of being a custodian of rights is significant enough that I believe that an actual legal process should be required, just as real estate sales require legal formalities.

Yes, indeed this is the sort of thing I agree with. 

Case law governing what constitutes propriety is usually enough until real concerns about immediate safety issues are raised... a proper system does not invoke preventative justice (based on speculation or statistics), but it has mechanisms for dealing with real threats of imminent harm, and irreparable damage and the like... and it would apply should someone find out the child is being sold for money or a pedophile is attempting to adopt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

but it has mechanisms for dealing with real threats of imminent harm, and irreparable damage and the like... and it would apply should someone find out the child is being sold for money or a pedophile is attempting to adopt...

I agree, but is it simply because children are an end in themselves that justifies the enforcement? What happens when this line of argument is used to justify forced taxation to enforce these protections?

There is a value to such protections for children. The child would appreciate it, in hindsight when he or she understands. But the caretaker, the lover understands ... NOW! And that is my point. Their ability to ultimately enforce such a right exists right now. The child does not have that ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

If you want to shirk that responsibility, you can if you do so in an orderly manner as specified by law. The proper concern of the government is whether there is a successor who accepts the responsibility.

Why is that the "proper" concern of the government? In other words, the population would agree to such an arrangement, but what is the principle behind it, David?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Why is that the "proper" concern of the government? In other words, the population would agree to such an arrangement, but what is the principle behind it, David?

I’ll start from an intermediate position in the chain of reasoning, not going all the way back to “A is A”. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals. When you chose to put a person in immediate jeopardy, you violate their rights and you have an obligation to mitigate that harm. The job of proper government is to promulgate objective laws saying what actions constitute putting a person in immediate jeopardy thereby violating their rights, and what the required mitigation is. You may burn down your house if you want, but you may not do so in a way that causes your neighbor’s house to catch fire – you can be required to limit your house-burning so as to not put your neighbor in jeopardy. If you decide to burn down your house, you can be required to notify your sleeping guests so that they can arrange an orderly evacuation. You can even be required to assist your crippled mother in her attempt to escape the conflagration that you caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

you can be required to limit your house-burning so as to not put your neighbor in jeopardy.

Agreed, but is this the gist of the argument regarding abandoning your responsibility in a disorderly way ... that it will cause harm to your neighbor?

Then I would say the question is around the nature of "individual" in this context. Is a child a potential individual or an individual?

Is the child an entity that should have the rights of an adult because it is potentially an adult? If so, one should say, the purpose of government is the protect the rights of individuals and potential individuals. In libertarian though a child is chattel as far as I understand. In objectivism, I have missed it addressed in sufficient detail.

But I will stick to my original argument ... that if children are not protected, it will make you sick, emotionally that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I agree, but is it simply because children are an end in themselves that justifies the enforcement? What happens when this line of argument is used to justify forced taxation to enforce these protections?

There is a value to such protections for children. The child would appreciate it, in hindsight when he or she understands. But the caretaker, the lover understands ... NOW! And that is my point. Their ability to ultimately enforce such a right exists right now. The child does not have that ability.

All individual rights are protected under a proper government, you are still exploring what rights a child has, and why.  This is explored more in another of your posts which I reply to below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Agreed, but is this the gist of the argument regarding abandoning your responsibility in a disorderly way ... that it will cause harm to your neighbor?

Then I would say the question is around the nature of "individual" in this context. Is a child a potential individual or an individual?

Is the child an entity that should have the rights of an adult because it is potentially an adult? If so, one should say, the purpose of government is the protect the rights of individuals and potential individuals. In libertarian though a child is chattel as far as I understand. In objectivism, I have missed it addressed in sufficient detail.

But I will stick to my original argument ... that if children are not protected, it will make you sick, emotionally that is.

You know, all rights come from an understanding of what the right society is for an individual to live and flourish in, and is grounded in an ethics we all know as selfish (but not irrational selfishness).  

Generally the idea of living in peace necessary for flourishing with individuals who are restrained from initiation of force (including fraud) gives rise to the concept of individual rights.  There are a lot of reason which you know of which support Rand's theory of individual rights, how politics springs from an ethics, a morality of rational selfishness.

Imagine all the reasons for having individual rights in a society, and do not forget we are human beings not meaningless machinations.  We are all individuals but we are not all independent and fully rational.  We all were children once, dependents starting as pre-rational, who at some time later become independent and rational... and we all to some degree have the potential (if we are lucky enough to live long enough), slip back into a state of physical or mental dependence.. and possibly post-rationality... once more.  And the vast majority of us love and value family, old or young.  I do not think the society which rests on all those reasons for individual rights, would be able to remain the right kind of society for flourishing, if the society removed rights for all dependents, or all children or adults, all members of society, who are not fully independent and rational.  At the very least a right to life is necessary, a right also to bodily integrity, being free from irreparable harm is also a requirement.  These rights are not extended to those "others" in a society as something superfluous to the proper society, they are necessary to it.

Try to imagine the kind of society which protected rights for only those who were fully rational and independent, and all the kinds of predation and killing and human suffering which could result... yes, emotional psychological harm is real, but it is not the only harm, not the only aspect inimical to flourishing one would get in such a society.  

I think there is a balance to be struck for the kinds of rights to be protected for dependents, a balance which recognizes that they are dependents, and cannot be fully responsible in all ways... possibly being a danger to others or themselves... but who at a minimum should have rights to life, bodily integrity, generally free from unnecessary initiation of force etc.   Rights and responsibilities would be rationally considered given the context of the individual.  The second amendment, for example, would not enable a 4 year old, or a completely addled old man with severe dementia, to remain in possession of a loaded gun.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy Truth: "I would not want to be in the child's shoes, completely abandoned and defenseless. It is empathy, or perhaps the golden rule. It is to my benefit that I live in a world where people take into consideration how it affects others."

Easy Truth: "But if you ask me why should an innocent child "not be harmed", I would not say it is because of the trader principle, or even that if we did that the human species would not survive. I would say it because it is disgusting to me."

Easy Truth: "[children] should not be abandoned because it would bother me."

So I take it that your only basis for holding that abandonment of children is morally wrong is empathy. So, to really confirm that, I asked:

InfraBeat: "Back to abandonment, if parents threw an infant unclothed into a garbage landfill in sub-freezing weather, the only moral condemnation you would have is "That bothers me"? And, moving past morality to legality, you would not vote to make such a thing illegal?"

Am I correct that your only moral condemnation would be that such an act is not emphathetic and therefore it disturbs you? But would you vote to make such acts illegal?


And I asked:

InfraBeat: "Aside from abandonment, do I understand correctly that your view is that the only reason that children (and adults?) have a right not to be killed is a principle of empathy?"

Easy Truth: "The complication is around children, not adults."

So the answer regarding children is what? Do you see a basis for it being morally wrong for parents to kill their children other than a principle of empathy? But then you answered again:

InfraBeat: "Aside from abandonment, do I understand correctly that your view is that the only reason that children (and adults?) have a right not to be killed is a principle of empathy?"

Easy Truth: "No."

I take it that you mean that there are bases, aside from empathy, for children not to be killed (by their parents; I take it that it's a given that even if children are no more than property of their parents, it's morally wrong to destroy someone else's property). 

As far as I can tell, your view is that the only basis for it being morally wrong to abandon children is empathy but that there are other bases too that make it morally wrong for parents to kill their children. So what are those bases? 

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...