That last piece of pie . . .

[william.scherk]

I think I should properly transcribe this podcast question and answer, but in the meantime, the skinny on kids, sharing, and that last piece of cake:

http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-02-07.150_A_01.L.mp3

[PDS]

Good to know the marble-mouthed answer to these cliff-hanger questions.

So if I am the keeper of my brother's cake, can I share it and eat it too? Please advise.

[Selene]

Can't we drive him out to a dog track where the buses do not run and leave him there with a name tag around his neck?

Ayn's intellectual heir!

Please, her foot stool at best.

I get nauseous by the third word!

Can't some collectivist diction coach do an altruistic intervention?

Adam

[PDS]

Can't we drive him out to a dog track where the buses do not run and leave him there with a name tag around his neck?

Ayn's intellectual heir!

Please, her foot stool at best.

I get nauseous by the third word!

Can't some collectivist diction coach do an altruistic intervention?

Adam

The short answers to your questions are, unfortunately, "no" and "no".

[Selene]

Can't we drive him out to a dog track where the buses do not run and leave him there with a name tag around his neck?

Ayn's intellectual heir!

Please, her foot stool at best.

I get nauseous by the third word!

Can't some collectivist diction coach do an altruistic intervention?

Adam

The short answers to your questions are, unfortunately, "no" and "no".

But, they shoot horses, I saw the movie!

[9thdoctor]

Ay-yi-yi, this is just the sort of thing one wastes time on, explaining that rational egoism is not about toddlers and their toys. Oh the humanity!

[caroljane]

Betty Crocker Peikoff should know about cake if anyone does. He had his Atlas Shrugged movie rights cake, he ate it in the form of the $1m Aglialoro paid him for them, and now he's looking for a second helping of book sales on the back of the movie he disdains.

[Backlighting]

He always sounds drunk.

[BaalChatzaf]

Lennie is truly one of the Lesser People.

He is not even a First Rate Second Rate person.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 22, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Jonathan]

Betty Crocker Peikoff should know about cake if anyone does.

Yeah, especially fruitcake.

"Would an Objectivist child be taught to share the last piece of cake with his brother?"

The phrasing of the question ("the" last piece as opposed to "his" piece) makes it sound as if the last piece of cake doesn't have a specific owner within the family -- that everyone present has had some cake, and now two brothers each want the final extra piece. I think the question then becomes why did Peikoff side with the brother who simply assumed that the piece of cake was his and that he wouldn't have to share it? Why would Peikoff assume that one kid and not the other would have "property rights" to the last piece? Was it because the kid "called it first"? Is that the way property rights work according to Objectivism -- the first person to assert that he owns any unowned or common property doesn't have to share it with his brother or anyone else? If so, I hereby "call it first" that I own everything in the universe that no one has previously claimed to own.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I get to eat the last piece. Why? Because I can.

--Brant

amoral monster

[Brant Gaede]

It's frankly embarrassing to listen to him imputing gravitas to a piece of cake. It was someone's piece to begin with and that someone decides what happens to it. What twit vets his questions?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sharing is wrong because it negates private property?

Good Lord!

I'm absolutely speechless.

(Well... not really, but I am astonished.)

How about this approach (presuming there is a dispute over the last piece of cake)?

To kid: "You will split that last piece with your brother because, in my house, we look out for each other. Later, when you have your own house, you can do it any way you wish."

Does that teach an assault on private property?

Heh.

I have to say, though, that if the brother isn't interested in the cake and you make the kid divide it anyway, that's just plain mean.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I believe Peikoff only had one child, so I’m thinking he has no experience in dealing with the tougher conflicts that come up. How about this, how should a parent deal with a situation where an older child has outgrown a toy, no longer plays with it, but starts crying when it is given to a younger sibling? Should the parent go out and buy the same toy all over again for each child? What if you’re a struggling adjunct philosophy professor, instead of living on the multi-million dollar estate of a genuinely famous author? In short, how do you reconcile the practice of hand-me-downs with this notion of property that Peikoff wants you to instill in your child?

[Xray]

LP's voice alone is quite disgareeable to listen to, and to hear him swallow his saliva makes my stomach turn.

As to the content of what he said, all this private property nonsense regarding a last piece of cake really 'takes the cake'.

As Jonathan has pointed out:

Why would Peikoff assume that one kid and not the other would have "property rights" to the last piece? Was it because the kid "called it first"? Is that the way property rights work according to Objectivism -- the first person to assert that he owns any unowned or common property doesn't have to share it with his brother or anyone else? If so, I hereby "call it first" that I own everything in the universe that no one has previously claimed to own.

So if Johnny happens to grab that last piece faster than his brother, that's just it - bad luck for the slower one? Suppose Johnny is six and the brother much younger, then the older one will nearly always be faster in grabbing a piece of cake from a plate.

Suppose the one who has grabbed that final piece has already eaten a lot more pieces of the cake than his brother because he is a bit on the greedy side?

And what would Peikoff tell the children in case none of them has yet taken the last piece but both want it? Who gets it?

How about this approach (presuming there is a dispute over the last piece of cake)?

To kid: "You will split that last piece with your brother because, in my house, we look out for each other. Later, when you have your own house, you can do it any way you wish."

This approach addresses a clear rule regarding empathy and caring.

But all this Peikoff does not address. What can be sensed instead is his disturbing aversion to sharing as such.

Here's another one for Peikoff to check his property rights premises: suppose little Johnny has listened attentively to Uncle Peikoff's lecture about property rights on pieces of cake. Next time clever Johnny now grabs the last three pieces of cake lying on the plate and declares them to be his private property. Uncle Peikoff is trapped in the snags of his own premise, for he can't very well now tell Johnny that he has to share anything.

Does Peikoff have any children?

Edited April 23, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

How about this approach (presuming there is a dispute over the last piece of cake)?

To kid: "You will split that last piece with your brother because, in my house, we look out for each other. Later, when you have your own house, you can do it any way you wish."

This approach adresses a clear rule regarding empathy and caring.

Rule? What rule? Your misrepresentation is breathtaking.

Nothing in MSK's post indicates a "rule regarding empathy and caring."

He says: a. "in my house" - indicating property and parental rights and duty.

b. "we look out for each other" - indicating mutual support and respect.

These are objective values.

It is fascinating that you read this as empathy, and automatically equate it with enforcement.

I have pointed this out, that empathy in action requires force to entrench it.

The end result is the Nanny State.

I don't think you'll be satisfied until this forum is renamed "Subjectivist Living."

[Xray]

How about this approach (presuming there is a dispute over the last piece of cake)?

To kid: "You will split that last piece with your brother because, in my house, we look out for each other. Later, when you have your own house, you can do it any way you wish."

This approach adresses a clear rule regarding empathy and caring.

Rule? What rule? Your misrepresentation is breathtaking.

Nothing in MSK's post indicates a "rule regarding empathy and caring."

He says: a. "in my house" - indicating property and parental rights and duty.

b. "we look out for each other" - indicating mutual support and respect.

It is empathy which lies at the root of mutual support and respect here.

As for property and parental rights: these rights imply rules for the children by which they are to abide.

When I say: "This is how things are being handled in my house", the message implies a rule of conduct for the other person. When e. g. Jane tells her guests that in her house, smoking is handled in that the guests go outside to smoke, it implies a rule of conduct for them.

These are objective values.

Your point being? A rule can make a lot of sense (the one implied in MSK's post certainly does).

I have pointed this out, that empathy in action requires force to entrench it.

(???) "Empathy in action requires force"? How so?

I don't think you'll be satisfied until this forum is renamed "Subjectivist Living."

I'm no Subjectivist. I do not believe:

"... that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe." [Ayn Rand Lexicon: 'Subjectivism']

Edited April 23, 2011 by Xray

[william.scherk]

'"Would an Objectivist child be taught to share the last piece of cake with his brother?"

No.

I mean, assuming it's not his brother's piece.

If he chooses to do it, that's okay, if it's his piece. But not if he chooses under pressure from his parents, not if he does it out of duty, because the implication otherwise is that sharing is a value, a virtue, a proper way of behaviour, and that is wrong: sharing as such is not a correct or a value. Sharing amounts to in this case giving some cake to someone who doesn't have it because he doesn't have it. And that is a complete injustice. It's an assault on the idea of private property.

http://media.blubrry.com/peikoff/www.peikoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2011-02-07.150_A_01.L.mp3

-- now that I have typed out the first half, I will sharpen my butcher tools and put on the apron and see if I can do better than Uncle Kookypants.

First off, what's with the unexamined premise of the question: what the heck is an Objectivist Child? Then -- how did the parents, who presumably have brought home a cake and supervised its sectioning by house rules, how did the parents not plan ahead for this eventuality? And what are the particular parameters of this generic dessert scene (perhaps it is 'reward time' for the kids, or a family fest, or a what the heck, let's bring a cake home honey and surprise the boys occasion, or a cake from Aunt Irma, or whatever)?

More importantly, look at Uncle's proviso: I mean, assuming it's not his brother's piece.

Why should we assume that, for gawd sake?

-- if the cake had already been sectioned, and it had been established that this final piece belonged to one brother over the other, there is no lesson to be taught about sharing . . . the deal has been sealed.

I think the questioner wanted a more challenging question answered -- I would disregard the proviso, and accept an implication of "all things being equal, what principles are at play over 'the last piece of cake'?"

It's an 'uncertain ownership' question, it's a 'fair share' question, it's an arbitration question, to my mind.

. . .

Two Objectivist Children, raised in an Objectivist Household, would very well know what their parents mean by rational self-interest, and the rocky shoals of emotionalism, of the subtle difference between rational self-interest and selfishness pur laine. These two serious-minded, reasoning and free young Objectivist creatures, would presumably have carefully calculated the value matrix surrounding the cake, and realize they were being handed an opportunity to show off their understanding of the principles involved in this situation. Of course, two Objectivist Children, brothers, would know very well that the parents had stumbled -- having somehow cut the cake so that the two fellows face a stark moral choice over the last remaining slice. Why did they cut it into an odd number? Were they four at the table? Was Auntie Irma still in vicinity? Had there been seven at table and each had had a slice?

Whatever the situation, the two boys, eyes bright with rationality, regard the glistening treat under the moral search-beams wired into them by family custom and Objectivist education, while parental eyes regard them quietly, as the central questions draw near.

Reality

Self-interest

Reason

Capitalism

Reality

Self-interest

Reason

Capitalism

Reality

Self-interest

Reason

Capitalism

Cake!

Edited April 23, 2011 by william.scherk

[9thdoctor]

In short, how do you reconcile the practice of hand-me-downs with this notion of property that Peikoff wants you to instill in your child?

Just to expand on this a little, should the younger child have to say Thank You to the older child when he receives a hand-me-down? How do you keep either one from resenting the other?

First off, what's with the unexamined premise of the question: what the heck is an Objectivist Child?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdRZV_B76Vo

[caroljane]

It's easy for you to theorize and analyze. You are not a survivor of the moral chaos,

anarchy and sheer horror of the War of the Last Carton of Chocolate Milk.

[Selene]

It's easy for you to theorize and analyze. You are not a survivor of the moral chaos,

anarchy and sheer horror of the War of the Last Carton of Chocolate Milk.

Carol:

All you have to do is put valium in the chocolate milk.

ND: excellent video.

William: Spot on, I missed the obvious...an "objectivist child" !

It is time for the collective to do an intervention and remove him from any communication with the outside world.

How to kill the rebirth of reason by Lenny. Let's make sure we give the folks who want to take down the great ideas Ayn presented with lots of

ammunition while the movie expands the potential base!

Agh!

Adam

[anthony]

Xray,

I have seen elephants displaying what we would call empathy.

I repeat, it is absolutely no surprise to me that Man, the rational animal, shares some hard-wiring, genetics, or whatever you want to call it, with animals.

But how do you measure empathy?

Let's say, I feel some for you, you feel some for me, what good does it do on its own?

However, translated into action, I do something for you as a result of my empathy - but you respond with less than I think I merit, or I did for you, and we fight.

We bring in an arbiter, who decides and enforces what is 'right'. But one, or both of us feel we have lost out.

There has been no objective standard applied anywhere here, and the enforcer, ultimately, the State, is the only beneficiary. Power loves subjectivism.

I can't be any clearer than this.

I argue constantly for benevolence in Objectivism - what some call 'tolerationism'.

Benevolence is effective and active. It carries its own reward, purely as a view of other people, and it can be self-interested and mutually beneficial.

If it has, deep down, some grounding in empathy, as I'm inclined to think, I won't argue.

But here's the distinction, I think benevolence is focused and conscious - a choice.

Empathy, which I observe in my dogs and cats, is de-focused and automatic.

So why not argue for benevolence and good-will, instead?

You would have my support.

I don't wish to continue boring anyone or myself on "empathy."

Tony

[PDS]

Is there some rule against cutting the last piece of cake in half?

[Selene]

Is there some rule against cutting the last piece of cake in half?

Not when I was raising my children.

It was a simple choice one half each, or I, or my wife ate it, or we could divide it into four parts...watch their beautiful little minds work on those alternatives!

[9thdoctor]

Is there some rule against cutting the last piece of cake in half?

Not when I was raising my children.

It was a simple choice one half each, or I, or my wife ate it, or we could divide it into four parts...watch their beautiful little minds work on those alternatives!

Tread lightly, these waters run deep!