Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How much education do we OWE our children?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 5/30/2023 at 6:56 AM, Boydstun said:

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

Perhaps I will muster time to compose explanations for my thinking about that.  At this point though, my main interest is in understanding Easy Truth's view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2023 at 7:45 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

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.

What I'm focusing on is the aspect of property where x belongs to y. Y is the owner. Y says this is mine, not yours. Maybe I should say "that which is owned" instead of property. after all, if you own it, it is yours.

The phrase "you own it" also means, you are responsible for some aspect of "it". You are the manager, so you own the department. You own the problem means - deal with it. Your daughter is your daughter, not mine. When she behaves in a way that you think is improper, she is not free to do that ... even if I disagree. As it should be. She does not have all the rights that you do ... because she is not ready. But potentially, she is just like you, when it comes to your freedom of actions.

At the core of your behaviors toward her is not that "she is an end in itself". It is "You love her". The fact that you want the best for her, or worry about her, etc. is not because you want to save the species or the country or do what your parents expect, it is because you love her. You want to do it. You are drawn to it.

You are responsible for her and you benefit from her happiness. The consequence of you not doing things to her benefit is that you will be hurt. If someone hurts her, it will hurt you. It's simple as that. "You're rights" in regards to her being infringed on. She is being hurt as a potential entity that deserves the same rights as you. But right now, she does not deserve all the rights.

So she should not have her hand slapped by a stranger for no reason. Why? Because I would not want to be in her place. It's decency in that sense that requires it. One can make lofty abstract reasons like society would not flourish if we allow harm to come to children, but in terms of immediate reaction, it's empathy, it's indignation, it is anger, and pity and love toward helpless children that is the motive.

Rights are a requirement for an "individual", at this point, I think it means a potentially rational entity. (which includes us and children).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2023 at 10:30 AM, DavidOdden said:

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.

I agree David but the issue of contract has to come up in order to illuminate the moral responsibilities that are NON-CONTRACTUAL. Like not murdering, or not committing fraud. These limitations to freedom of action are requirements to surviving without unnecessary conflict between individuals. They are not based on an agreement. But their acceptance is very likely if a formal agreement was necessary.

As far as responsibility goes, morality is consequentialist. If you harm a child, the consequences are "bad for you in the long run", for it to be wrong. That has to be at the core of it.

You bring up personal moral responsibility. Can you elaborate on that in this context?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2023 at 3:47 PM, InfraBeat said:

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? 

Descriptively speaking, a parent that loves their child will not kill their child. A parent that hates or fears their child might.

If the child is evil to be of harm to everyone, like having a disease that will only go away if you kill the child, the parent or potentially vulnerable people should have the right to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple example is lying in order to keep the goodwill of another person. It is immoral, and I presume it’s unnecessary (at least right now) to argue for that conclusion. It should not be a crime to lie – except in specific limited circumstances (e.g. perjury, fraud). Rudeness like willfully leaving dog poo in front of a neighbor’s house is likewise immoral (ignore some convoluted “payback” scenario), but is not properly addressed by the law. Focusing on the question of personal moral responsibility, taking responsibility means recognizing that you caused some fact, and it would be immoral – evasion of reality – to deny that relation and the corollary action that constitutes justice in regard to your actions towards others.

I don’t deny that most people think of morality from a consequentialist perspective, but that doesn’t make that view correct. Murder if you can get away with it is still contrary to a rational moral code. My claim is, very simply, that there are no contradictions. You cannot claim to be rational while disclaiming the very meaning of “being rational”.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proper governance, or morality, is actually of benefit. If we say murder is wrong, and then turn around and say "But in this case" it would benefit, something is not making sense.

Why would murder be of benefit? Short term, it may remove an annoyance. But here we have to include a hierarchy of values that you brought up in another thread.

Murder may not be a good example to support your argument. To kill without any defensive purpose is to lose opportunities with that person and to lose connection with trustable loving people. Who would want to be around a person that could kill without provocation? Any example brought of a "murder" that benefits is going to be contradictory.

I would argue that morality is consequentialist in every case. In fact, it has to be. A morality that is not consequentialist is by definition ... purposeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

a parent that loves their child will not kill their child. A parent that hates or fears their child might.

That's more or less a fact, but it's not a moral principle. You haven't answered the question: What bases other than empathy make it morally wrong for a parent to kill his child?

3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If the child is evil to be of harm to everyone, like having a disease that will only go away if you kill the child, the parent or potentially vulnerable people should have the right to do so.

That's irrelevant to the question: What are the bases that morally disallow a parent from killing his child? Claiming that there may be extraordinary circumstances by which a parent may have a moral right to kill his child doesn't supply a bases on which, without such extraordinary circumstances, it is morally wrong for a parent to kill his child.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're logically confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

At the core of your behaviors toward her is not that "she is an end in itself". It is "You love her".

What motivates people to behave in certain ways is not ostensibly an answer to what are the bases of rights. Whether a person is motivated to behave toward me in a certain way does not determine what my rights are. 

You seem stuck in conflating two different things: The personal reasons people have for acting morally versus the bases for determining what acts are moral or immoral. 

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

So she should not have her hand slapped by a stranger for no reason. Why? Because I would not want to be in her place.

That's your empathy basis. Suppose a parent were not empathetic with the child. Presumably the child still has a right not to be killed by the parent. So we ask: What are the bases of that right? 

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

If you harm a child, the consequences are "bad for you in the long run", for it to be wrong. That has to be at the core of it.

That is a quite peculiar notion of rights. Now in addition to your empathy basis, your notion is that the core of the right not to be killed is that the potential killer would suffer bad consequences, but not a notion that the basis is that the victim would suffer bad consequences. It would be very peculiar indeed to say "My moral right not to be murdered is that the murderer would have bad outcomes" rather than to say "My moral right not to be murdered involves the imposition of a bad outcome on me, namely that I would be dead".

I also asked whether you think your view on this subject derives from Objectivism.

 

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2023 at 8:35 PM, InfraBeat said:

I also asked whether you think your view on this subject derives from Objectivism.

It may or may not be. The only position that I have seen is that "In a general sense, Objectivists hold that children should be legally protected from abuse and from extremes of parental neglect. There is agreement also that by and large children should have more freedom to make choices as they grow up. "

https://www.atlassociety.org/post/childrens-rights-ii#:~:text=Answer%3A In a general sense,choices as they grow up.

But that does not go into the philosophical basis.

On 6/2/2023 at 8:35 PM, InfraBeat said:
On 6/2/2023 at 3:20 PM, Easy Truth said:

So she should not have her hand slapped by a stranger for no reason. Why? Because I would not want to be in her place.

That's your empathy basis. Suppose a parent were not empathetic with the child. Presumably the child still has a right not to be killed by the parent. So we ask: What are the bases of that right? 

Presumably, they should have that right. But then, any living thing may have that right. A rabbit for instance. But a child is a potential rational being. But more importantly, it will break one's heart for it to be some other way.

On 6/2/2023 at 8:35 PM, InfraBeat said:

It would be very peculiar indeed to say "My moral right not to be murdered is that the murderer would have bad outcomes" rather than to say "My moral right not to be murdered involves the imposition of a bad outcome on me, namely that I would be dead".

.The murderer would have bad outcomes and being murdered is not what I want. My moral right stems from the fact that the "right" is beneficial to me and ALL like me. All who want to flourish. (not the suicidal ones). Having a right not to be murdered or stolen from or physically harmed stems from the fact that I need that "safety". And so do you, and so does everyone else.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is distinction between an Objectivist consensus on a conclusion and the logic applied to philosophical principles used to reach that conclusion. Since Objectivism bases rights on the rationality of humans, we have to ask: What about humans who have merely potential, or degrees of potentiality, for sufficient rationality? Then: What is the reasoning by which an Objectivist would reach an answer to that question.

Broadly speaking, there are two approaches:

(1) Take it as a given conclusion that, for whatever reason, children have a right not to be killed. Then, working backwards, adopt axioms that derive that conclusion. That is, one adopts a moral theory to serve as a basis for particular moral judgements one already has. So one may say that no matter what moral theory you posit, it must derive that is it not moral to kill children. That is not Objectivist.

(2) Adopt axioms that are regarded as true in any case. Then derive a moral theory that might or might not derive that it is not moral to kill children. That is, one adopts axioms that are true in any case, then one uses reason to find out what those axioms imply. That is Objectivist. Ah, but we can be pretty sure that no Objectivist wants to end up with a moral theory that does not include that it is not moral to kill children and does not include that parents don't have a right to kill their children. So Objectivism has to figure out an argument from the axioms that concludes that is it not moral to kill children despite that children have only degrees of potentiality for sufficient rationality that is the basis of rights.

You say that a rabbit has a right not to be killed. That is not Objectivist, so any reasoning about rights of children that yields also that a rabbit has rights is not Objectivist. 

On 6/4/2023 at 9:35 PM, Easy Truth said:

My moral right stems from the fact that the "right" is beneficial to me and ALL like me. [...] Having a right not to be murdered or stolen from or physically harmed stems from the fact that I need that "safety". 

Objectivism does not hold that people have rights to whatever they happen to need or whatever happens to benefit them and even everyone else. Rights in Objectivism are not simplified that way. So the right not to be killed is reasoned on more than that one wants and/or needs not to be killed. 

 

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

So the right not to be killed is reasoned on more than that one wants and/or needs not to be killed. 

Then how would you define the requirement to survive to mean? As far as the right to "not" be murdered, that is a requirement of a life worth living.

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

So Objectivism has to figure out an argument from the axioms that concludes that is it not moral to kill children despite that children have only degrees of potentiality for sufficient rationality that is the basis of rights.

I would rather emphasize that you and I have to figure that out, not objectivism. We have the tools based on objectivist thought, nevertheless, what is true, is what is true.

The fundamental issue that I have a problem with is the fact that a right is a freedom of action to survive. Required freedom. But a 4-month-old given that freedom cannot survive. So the freedom to act rationally does not apply to a baby. Therefore a right to life for a baby ends up meaning surviving as long as its lungs and heart etc. work (meaning not interfering with its natural and bodily survival activity). But we want the child to be taken care of.

In this case, rights apply to the caretakers or potential caretakers. Most humans will "make it work", pool their resources, or volunteer to help the child survive. Most humans want to protect that child. But that is deeply emotionally motivated. Now, is this an argument for an inherent value in helping the species survive? It sure looks like it. Is it also an argument that in some cases, emotions are in fact a tool of ethical determination i.e. cognition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mere fact that people want a child to survive and develop proves nothing about their rights or the child's rights.  If we want to argue that a child has rights, we have to argue that at some point its potential for development and/or whatever partial development it has already achieved are enough.  If we want to argue that the rights of the caregivers are relevant, the argument may have something in common with arguments about property rights, but it is not the same thing because children are not property.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If we want to argue that a child has rights, we have to argue that at some point its potential for development and/or whatever partial development it has already achieved are enough.

And that is the hold-up. A four-month-old can't use his freedom to survive. The only argument I can see is the survival of species argument. Other than that you are invited to make the case. Also, you realize that a potential argument goes into abortion issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

A four-month-old can't use his freedom to survive.

One point that needs to be clarified is the hierarchical nature of knowledge: knowledge is a hierarchical system of concepts and propositions. Insofar as we are speaking of human knowledge (not some table-looking computer), this system must be simple (see the various references to “crow”). Second, moral knowledge is a specific kind of knowledge, about good and bad with respect to choices. Part 2.1 is that “rights” is further specialized kind of knowledge, it is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The fundamental right is a man’s right to his own life. From this flows the rest of the discussion. If you reject that principle, then we need to understand what you offer in its place. For example, you may instead hold that only males have rights, or men over age 25 have rights, or females under age 65. In a discussion of rights, the fundamental question is whether you accept the fundamental principle that a man has a right to his own life.

I recognize that Rand used more classical language in her writing, when she continually speaks of “man”. She means “person” or in Latin homō. It does not mean “male” and it does not mean “adult”. There can be no doubt that she means “person”, and furthermore a child is a person. A child, indeed a newborn, can be distinguished from a fetus because a child, or any other person, does not live inside a person, but a fetus does live inside a person. This is essential to the abortion question.

It is true that a four-month-old can’t use his freedom to survive, also a person undergoing surgery (who is unconscious) can’t use his freedom to survive, but still these people have rights. So the inability of a four-month-old to survive on his own is irrelevant in the face of the fundamental principle that all men have rights.

I am harping on the hierarchical nature of moral knowledge, because you are dipping down in the direction of those facts that establish the fundamental principle, as though those facts might directly replace the principle itself. This is contrary to the nature of human cognition. It is a mistake to argue that a child has rights, because child rights are self evident from the fundamental moral principle that defines rights. It would be more coherent to reject the principle itself and offer in its place a different principle, for example that only those that survive the Spartan agōgē have rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

Part 2.1 is that “rights” is further specialized kind of knowledge, it is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. The fundamental right is a man’s right to his own life. From this flows the rest of the discussion. If you reject that principle, then we need to understand what you offer in its place.

Okay, a four-month-old has a right to his own life. The question is does that obligate you as a person who is NOT the father, the obligation to take care of the child? Why is that an issue? Because for the baby: freedom of action in a social context is limited to freedom to breathe and defecate at that point. There is no other action it can do to survive except be cute with its voice and smiles etc. So "to survive" for the child means, to make someone else "help" it survive.

You may in fact take care of that child, but it is because you want to. I argue that it is not primarily because of some principle that is motivating you. It would be painful for you to see the child destroyed. Can you at least admit that your emotions will have a large influence on your decision in such a case?

You use the phrase self-evident and I'm not sure why you say it as rights are not self-evident. So I must be misunderstanding something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

You use the phrase self-evident and I'm not sure why you say it as rights are not self-evident.

I do so because once we understand the fundamental principle that a man has a fundamental right to his own life, and given that “man” means “person” and not just “adult male human”, it is self-evident that a child has a right to his own life. The claim is not that the nature of rights is self-evident, it is that once you understand the nature of rights (and man), the conclusion is self-evident.

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Okay, a four-month-old has a right to his own life.

Told you so. Okay, now that we are in agreement on that basic conclusion, you ask whether that obligates me as a person who is NOT the father to take care of some child – I can’t imagine that anything I said would suggest that. The initial obligation of which I spoke is that of the persons who caused the child to exist: the mother and possibly a father. See the above discussion of responsibility, and also the matter that a person can rightfully (though perhaps not with proper moral foundation) reassign that responsibility as guardian of rights.


 
10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Can you at least admit that your emotions will have a large influence on your decision in such a case?

Can you at least admit that your hatred of reason leads you to embrace an emotion-based theory of morality, even if it's not trie? Alternatively, can you offer substantive evidence and reasoning that I depend on emotion rather than reason to reach my stance? I don’t really think you have a hatred of reason, but I don’t understand how come you won’t accept the rational basis for child rights, and parental responsiblity. I also think that you have inverted the relationship between reason and emotion. “Want” is the emotional response to rational “need” – you want food and shelter because you need them: they are necessary to your survival. “Sorrow” is the emotional response to “loss of value”. I don’t just just admit that many people are driven purely by emotion, I INSIST AND LAMENT that this is so, and take every opportunity to counter the Kantian substitution of reason with emotion.

We are now squarely in the realm of OPAR’s discussion of emotion as a tool for knowledge – I think that is where you should be focusing your investigations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2023 at 8:12 AM, DavidOdden said:

Told you so. Okay, now that we are in agreement on that basic conclusion, you ask whether that obligates me as a person who is NOT the father to take care of some child – I can’t imagine that anything I said would suggest that. The initial obligation of which I spoke is that of the persons who caused the child to exist: the mother and possibly a father. See the above discussion of responsibility, and also the matter that a person can rightfully (though perhaps not with proper moral foundation) reassign that responsibility as guardian of rights.

I have heard the argument "You abandoning the child you created will create a burden for the rest of us". I have also heard the idea that if you create a child, there is a contractual relationship between you and the child. That you are "agressing" on their right to be fed based on that contractual relationship.

But a right of a child to survive is meaningless in the sense that a right is like being "allowed to". I have the right to x means I should not be opposed to x. A child cannot survive, therefore a right to survive sort of becomes meaningless. Which is the problem I'm trying to address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2023 at 11:01 PM, InfraBeat said:

one adopts axioms that are true in any case, then one uses reason to find out what those axioms imply. That is Objectivist.

I should have written "one adopts axioms that one holds to be correct in any case, then one uses what one holds to be correct reasoning to see what those axioms imply". My point in that the remark was not a claim of the correctness of the Objectivist formulations of its axioms or its reasoning, but merely to contrast with the other approach I mentioned.

So two different approaches: (1) Have certain moral principles in mind, then find axioms that derive those principles. (2) Adopt axioms, without first requiring that they derive any particular moral principles, then see what moral principles they do derive.

But I also should have said that it's not clear to me that heuristically Objectivism doesn't partake somewhat of approach (1). Before Rand devised the Objectivist axioms, she already firmly held to the ideals of individualism, egoism, liberty, and capitalism. So fat chance that she would have for a moment countenanced axioms that she thought would not derive those principles. 

Similarly, I regard killing of children as wrong, prior to any philosophy or axioms I might have. There's no way I would adopt axioms that derive that it is permissible to kill children. That might not be viable philosophically, but, as I am not a philosopher, I don't require of myself that every one of my personal principles is justified rigorously by philosophical methods.

On the other hand, I am intellectually curious how certain philosophies derive their conclusions. In the case of Objectivism, there is a need to account for the status of children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2023 at 12:39 AM, Easy Truth said:
On 6/5/2023 at 11:01 PM, InfraBeat said:

So the right not to be killed is reasoned on more than that one wants and/or needs not to be killed. 

Then how would you define the requirement to survive to mean? As far as the right to "not" be murdered, that is a requirement of a life worth living.

Roughly stated: Objectivist ethics concerns the goal to survive. Then Objectivism reasons that not getting murdered is a requirement to survive, therefore (with some other reasoning too) people have a right not to be murdered. The details are found in the Objectivist literature.

On 6/6/2023 at 12:39 AM, Easy Truth said:

what is true, is what is true

Or use a coherence theory of truth.

On 6/6/2023 at 12:39 AM, Easy Truth said:

a right is a freedom of action to survive. Required freedom. But a 4-month-old given that freedom cannot survive. So the freedom to act rationally does not apply to a baby.

Yes, that problem has to be addressed. One solution is the potentiality argument. A different solution might be an argument that we regard humans as a special class, from birth to death, no matter what. That is, that we don't qualify each person individually - having to account for their different degrees of rationality - but rather that there is a one blanket principle for all people. 

But the issue you mention is not the same as the right not to be killed: There are two: (1) The right of the child not to be killed, (2) The parent's obligation to care for the child (and is there a right of the child to be cared for by the parents?).

Edited by InfraBeat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

But I also should have said that it's not clear to me that heuristically Objectivism doesn't partake somewhat of approach (1). Before Rand devised the Objectivist axioms, she already firmly held to the ideals of individualism, egoism, liberty, and capitalism. So fat chance that she would have for a moment countenanced axioms that she thought would not derive those principles. 

Similarly, I regard killing of children as wrong, prior to any philosophy or axioms I might have. There's no way I would adopt axioms that derive that it is permissible to kill children. That might not be viable philosophically, but, as I am not a philosopher, I don't require of myself that every one of my personal principles is justified rigorously by philosophical methods.

If one finds certain axioms attractive, but they necessarily imply that the Sun does not rise in the east or that human beings do not exist, there must be something wrong with those axioms.

To what extent do we deduce things from the axioms, and to what extent do they simply clarify and reinforce the validity of our reasonings from more specific starting points?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

Yes, that problem has to be addressed. One solution is the potentiality argument. A different solution might be an argument that we regard humans as a special class, from birth to death, no matter what. That is, that we don't qualify each person individually - having to account for their different degrees of rationality - but rather that there is a one blanket principle for all people. 

Yes, the thread has brought up potentiality and species arguments. But the species argument is that the species will die if we don't take care of the children and it has its limitations when more children can in fact be taken care of. The claim is that human life has an inherent value, which I see a lot. The potentiality argument has problems when including the abortion issue.

The only logical one that I see is in terms of the rights of competing caretakers in the case of children. Even though it may be hard, there is pleasure and satisfaction in raising a child or enhancing a life. And it is frightening to think that people can simply kill a child as if throwing a toy away. And from a practical and descriptive stance, it is only the adults (or caretakers (i.e. older children maybe)) that can do anything about it anyway.

Here abandonment, or boycotting is in fact a violent act. But that only applies in the case of a child. Not in the case of the elderly because they have had a chance to create some safety for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

the species argument is that the species will die if we don't take care of the children

You mentioned that earlier, but just to be clear, the notion I'm mentioning is not that argument. Rather, I'm mentioning the notion that all members of the species have rights no matter their individual degrees of rationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If one finds certain axioms attractive, but they necessarily imply that the Sun does not rise in the east or that human beings do not exist, there must be something wrong with those axioms.

That suggests a third option: (3) Adopt axioms we regard as irrefutable, then see what they derive, and if we reject what they derive, then adopt different or modified axioms, then see what they derive, repeating as needed.

Suppose Martha is clear that the Objectivist axioms entail that parents are obligated to care for their children. But Bob is clear that the Objectivist axioms entail that parents are not obligated to care for their children. But Bob convinces Martha. She has two choices: (a) Give up her position that parents are obligated to care for their children, or (b) Give up or modify for herself the axioms. 

What, if anything, does the Objectivist literature say about that? Not about this particular example, but about the general question.

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

To what extent do we deduce things from the axioms, and to what extent do they simply clarify and reinforce the validity of our reasonings from more specific starting points?

What, if anything, does the Objectivist literature say about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InfraBeat said:

That suggests a third option: (3) Adopt axioms we regard as irrefutable, then see what they derive, and if we reject what they derive, then adopt different or modified axioms, then see what they derive, repeating as needed.

Suppose Martha is clear that the Objectivist axioms entail that parents are obligated to care for their children. But Bob is clear that the Objectivist axioms entail that parents are not obligated to care for their children. But Bob convinces Martha. She has two choices: (a) Give up her position that parents are obligated to care for their children, or (b) Give up or modify for herself the axioms. 

What, if anything, does the Objectivist literature say about that? Not about this particular example, but about the general question.

What, if anything, does the Objectivist literature say about that?

Let's remember that the axioms are implicit in any cognition, so any attempt to deny them or to call them into question is self-contradictory.

As far as contradictions go, Objectivism makes clear that contradictions can't exist in reality, and that if we conclude a contradiction, we must check our premises.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

the axioms are implicit in any cognition, so any attempt to deny them or to call them into question is self-contradictory

5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If one finds certain axioms attractive, but they necessarily imply that the Sun does not rise in the east or that human beings do not exist, there must be something wrong with those axioms.

You can't have both, or you haven't addressed the question. What do we say if Bob convinces us that the Objectivist axioms derive that parents are not obligated to care for their children? If we say that that must be wrong, because we are already certain that parents are obligated to care for their children, then where did that certainty derive from? Or would you claim that holding that parents are obligated to care for their children is implicit in cognition?

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...