This isn’t my situation at all, it’s just an issue that I’ve thinking about after reading some stories on Yahoo! Answers. If a man sires a child, but decides early in the child’s life that he doesn’t want to be a parent and walks out on the child and mother, has he done something morally wrong? And having done so, is it ridiculous for him to try to contact the child later in life when he changes his mind? Should the child have any reason to want to know him? I understand that the biological relationship doesn’t count for anything and that a father is someone who raises, not sires a child, so my inclination is to say that if a biological parent misses the first 10 years or so of a child’s life, that he basically forfeits the child for life.
If one can justify abandonment as an act of rational self-interest, then it wouldn’t be ethically wrong according to Objectivism, as I understand it… For example, having sex doesn’t demonstrate a commitment to become a parent, and if the child is the result of an unplanned pregnancy, then it would depend on whatever agreements the father had made with the mother for support; I notice you didn’t refer to the man as “her husband”. Your use of the phrase, “walks out”, suggests abandonment, i.e. without consideration of existing obligations made to the mother and child. That being the case, it’s more likely he’s done something morally wrong.
I’m curious to see how Objectivists will respond to this one…
Yeah, I guess it would be context-dependent. I feel kind of dumb now.
This isn’t my situation at all, it’s just an issue that I’ve thinking about after reading some stories on Yahoo! Answers. If a man sires a child, but decides early in the child’s life that he doesn’t want to be a parent and walks out on the child and mother, has he done something morally wrong?
Everything is context dependent, sure, but in a normal context, yes, abandoning your child is immoral. A child you agreed to have is a responsibility you assumed until he reaches maturity. Balking at that responsibility, by choice, is dishonest and irresponsible.
If one can justify abandonment as an act of rational self-interest, then it wouldn’t be ethically wrong according to Objectivism, as I understand it.
Which part of Objectivism are you basing that understanding on? Are you familiar with the seven virtues described in Atlas Shrugged?
Everything is context dependent, sure, but in a normal context, yes, abandoning your child is immoral. A child you agreed to have is a responsibility you assumed until he reaches maturity. Balking at that responsibility, by choice, is dishonest and irresponsible.
“A child you agreed to have” wasn’t part of the original statement. How do you know the child wasn’t delivered against your wishes as the result of an unplanned pregnancy?
Which part of Objectivism are you basing that understanding on? Are you familiar with the seven virtues described in Atlas Shrugged?
Rationality, productivity, pride, independence, justice, integrity, and honesty.
I can imagine cases where it’s best for everyone if the father does “walk out”.
“A child you agreed to have” wasn’t part of the original statement. How do you know the child wasn’t delivered against your wishes as the result of an unplanned pregnancy?
I used the power of deduction. If the decision to abandon him was made “early in the child’s life”, that means the father was on board with the conception, pregnancy and birth part. Otherwise, the decision would’ve been made before the child’s life.
I used the power of deduction. If the decision to abandon him was made “early in the child’s life”, that means the father was on board with the conception, pregnancy and birth part. Otherwise, the decision would’ve been made before the child’s life.
Read the rest of DA’s post. The second provides an example of the thought, which was unplanned pregnancy. DA’s post is assuming a context of there never having been any obligation. So to rephrase the question to you: should a parent have a moral right to walk out on a child *if* there was no agreement? “Early in the child’s life” can mean there was no agreement, but the father stayed anyway, but then changed his mind. Your original answer is fine, so is your answer any different for this modified context?
I used the power of deduction. If the decision to abandon him was made “early in the child’s life”, that means the father was on board with the conception, pregnancy and birth part. Otherwise, the decision would’ve been made before the child’s life.
Perhaps, but I don’t think it can be said we know that…
“… a man sires a child, but decides early in the child’s life that he doesn’t want to be a parent and walks out on the child and mother…” ~ partially reposted
The man isn’t referred to as a husband, so I deduce that the pregnancy is likely to have been unplanned, as opposed to resulting from a more formal arrangement of marriage to produce children. In this context, the child’s mother may have decided to bear and deliver the child without any consent from her partner, altering a relationship based on sex into a relationship based on parental obligation. It’s likely it took him a while to choose not to stay, given the circumstances and the expectation that remaining would be “the right thing to do”. So he adopts a wait and see attitude and gradually becomes less and less happy with a situation he neither consented to undertake, nor cares to continue in…
The sticky part for me is, ‘abandonment’ implies cutting your losses and running. We suspect he chose to leave without offering any continuing support, but would an Objectivist in this situation (escaping from a duty imposed on him) be ethically required to provide support, or ask permission to leave?
Yeah, I guess it would be context-dependent. I feel kind of dumb now.
Your initial question, as posted, has some interesting implications. While I greatly appreciate Objectivism, and am very interested in the philosophy, I’m not offering responses from the perspective of an Objectivist. I’ll rely on Nicky & Eiuol, et al, to provide a more credible perspective here. Perhaps your follow up questions will come into play…