Objectivism and Children

[Xray]

It goes to show. As soon as you allow arguments from genetics in - you elevate picking fleas off each others' hides, and diminish humans interacting for the best within them.

Then the concepts become more or less blurred.

Then you get moral relativism.

Then you get the end of morality.

It doesn't have to be blurred - I agree with John on that. But I think one has to be very precise in one's choice of words to make unmistakeably clear what one is talking about, and be willing to explain again if it looks like misunderstandings arise.

Alas, the fudgy term 'altruism' seems be very prone to cause this 'blurring' when used, which is why I'm trying to avoid it.

Re biology as the basis: I have the impression that biological and philosophical argumentation often seem to antagonize each other, but this need not be the case if one looks at it analogous to a house where biogology is the fundament and philosophy the roof.

Just as one cannot start building house beginning with the roof, imo the rational approach is to first consider the fundament of the 'edifice', examining man's biological nature.

The fact that we have biologically evolved from more primitive animals belongs to the fundament.

The Objectivist idea of "man as a heroic being" would belong to the 'roof', for it indicates a high stage that can be reached.

[anthony]

Right - it's all contained in "rational animal".

[Mikee]

I'm firmly convinced that rationality combined with empathy will contribute immensely toward humanity's intellectual and ethical evolvement.

Human nature contains a great deal of empathy under the right conditions and human nature will not change. Rationality is what's missing. Replacing individual reason with a hundred million rules makes goodwill and empathy impossible. It is a perversion. It weakens the rule of law. It is impossible for it to work. You want to be a rule maker? Memorize this rule: mind your own business.

[anthony]

Replacing individual reason with a hundred million rules makes goodwill and empathy impossible. .

...and makes altruism impressible. (If I may add.)

Nail on the head. Well said.

"Rule"- oriented and duty-obligated ethical systems eventually must abandon selective voluntarism by the focused mind.

Making any helpful action for others essentially ego-less.

Isn't this the pale imitation which altruists pass off as benevolence, or compassion?

Tony

[Mikee]

Replacing individual reason with a hundred million rules makes goodwill and empathy impossible. .

...and makes altruism impressible. (If I may add.)

Nail on the head. Well said.

"Rule"- oriented and duty-obligated ethical systems eventually must abandon selective voluntarism by the focused mind.

Making any helpful action for others essentially ego-less.

Isn't this the pale imitation which altruists pass off as benevolence, or compassion?

Tony

That nails it. Thank you Tony.

[anthony]

That nails it. Thank you Tony.

No, the credit goes to you; what I've been trying to say in pages of words, you said completely in a few..

[Xray]

I'm firmly convinced that rationality combined with empathy will contribute immensely toward humanity's intellectual and ethical evolvement.

Human nature contains a great deal of empathy under the right conditions and human nature will not change.

This cannot be predicted with certainty, since biological evolution is an ongoing process.

[Mikee]

I'm firmly convinced that rationality combined with empathy will contribute immensely toward humanity's intellectual and ethical evolvement.

Human nature contains a great deal of empathy under the right conditions and human nature will not change.

This cannot be predicted with certainty, since biological evolution is an ongoing process.

10,000 years is too short a time for biological evolution. Cultural evolution is another story. The application of third party force in place of freewill into peoples lives drives cultural evolution in the opposite direction of "empathy" in my opinion. Making people do what they otherwise wouldn't do by their own freewill is toxic, it poisons society making bullies of some, and all become cynics. Open societies, free markets, liberty and strong rule of law is the only answer.

[kluss]

but will not children also have the problem abut the ppl that have 70 iq vs 100 iq or 100 vs 160 iq?

what abut sombody thyat have iq 145 and in school get told by there parents and teachers that they have adhd and force on the (what in relaity are) meth becuse they are difrent and bored ?

[Theodore]

Unfortunately due to Ayn Rand herself Objectivism has stagnated since her death. Because the "Official" objectivity do not permit the goddess to be questioned this means that there is much which objectivism has yet to explore. Now don't get me wrong I absolutely agree with about 99% of what Ayn Rand says, this however does not change the fact that serious questions which might challenge the official party line are verboten. This makes people fear to even ask questions outside of what Rand explored lest they later find themselves in conflict with her royal highness.

As far as application of Objectivism to raising children, many people here have already commented they are not formed yet. The idea is to raise them in accordance with your values. Christians unfortunately have it rather easy as they already have an established mythology which explains a lot. I have long thought that we ourselves need a mythology for children. I do not mean myth as in lie but rather myth as in fiction which demonstrates our values. Children cannot distinguish between fiction and non-fiction, however as i believe Aristotle pointed out there is no more important genre of writing than fiction.

The main thing is to be careful what you put in your children's head. I plan on starting a family within the next year; we are getting rid of our TV, and going to be very careful what we play music wise. We are not getting rid of our TV because we think it is evil, but because we don't want our children absorbing subconsciously the crap on it. The same goes for books, we are being very careful what books we bring into the home, and home/unschooling them, because we do not want their teachers brainwashing them with crap like global warming, or collectivization.

For me children are the end all be all because without them what does anything mean? If I build the John Galt motor what good does it do if there is no one here to use it?

[audiognostic]

damn, huge discussion on this.. i was thinking about the issue myself.. then i came to a conclusion i think to be valid..

ok.. here i go..

i was thinking.. if the basis of all morality is self interest right... then why shoulld a parent continiue to feed and care for his child if the parent gets sick of it... right??

ok here is what i came up with...

there are a few basic premisis for my argument

1. objectivism is all about self interest, not in putting others first.. so who ever said it is our individual goal or responsibility to be a "moral example for how everybody else should live for the good of the human race"???

2. i do not believe pure objectivism is incompatible with a good existance as long as there is minor reframing of issues.. or who iis responsible for what.. and what defines an entity... such as .. the individual is responsible only for his own happiess as an entity, a society, nation, or clan as an entity is responsible for its own self interest as an entity... taht being said.. this leads into..

3... i am not an anarchist, neithr do i believe objectivism supports anarchism so i believe in law, i think the only point i disagree on with ayn rand is the purpose of law.. which i believe should go beyod simply protecting personal property rights.. instead i believe it should do wat it was intended to do by the united states constitution.. to act in the name of its constituents self interest.. so that is my reframing...so that being said..

4. based on our representative republic in the usa.. teh law is meant to take care of such things.. such as the rational good of society at large... if you think of the country as an entity in itself, and you expand your view of the application of objectivism and think of objectivism in terms of application to entities at large, not just singular individuals which comprise and create that entity out of their own self interest, with objectivist morality to be applied to that entity and have the desire for happiness and continued life for that entity, and for objectivism to rule the creation of that entity out of individual interest so that the self interest of the entity, truly in the best way represents the self interst of its members, ...pure objectivism and self interst still works.. as long as laws are meant to take of the entity of the nation and its society in a RATIONAL manner.. which is the whole point of electing good politicians and making good laws... and it ALL comes down to self interest... the american people have the government by choice and self interest, rather than by force according to the constitution and declaration of independence.. therefore it is the american peoples individual self interests, for the entity of america to exist.. and it becomes the entity of americas self interest for itself to exist..therefore the defense, military, etc.. and as an entity, following objectivist ethics.. it has the moral obligation of creating its own rational self interest morality system if it wishes to continue to exist.. therefore.. it is not the individuals responsibility to create morals for the good of the people.. but the entities responsibility in which those people wilfully exist.. because anarchy is PURE individualism.. but actually not RATIONAL self interest!! but rather self interest of whim!!! and therefore is immoral and does us no good to further the cause of our own lives.. which is why we CHOOSE to have government! - in the wonderful system of the american constitutional republic at least.. and its capitalist economy and entire system.. the most progressive, objectivist, revolutionary system ever truly made.. all those "revolutionary prograssive socialists": really have their head up their ass..

5. the same can be said about a company.. as it is the CEOs and founders self interest for that entity to exist, essentially his self interest becomes congruent with the self interest of the company, and therefore rational principles must be founded for that entity to continue to exist if the ceo wishes to continue to profit from it.. thats why the ceo must pay his employees and provide them with proper faculties, rather than taking everything for himself.. none of this is altruism, but a continuation of rational self interest and objectivist morality

6. that being said, we as individuals do not need to neccessarily be concerned about being an example for everybody, or if our personal values would benefit society at large... for they are our own and solely for our own benefit and not for anybody else.. we do not need to worry "what if everybody did this.. what would happenn to society" for the reasons i mentioned above...

7. therefore.. coming back to my example with not feeding your children... and taking proper care of them... ultimately how you choose to raise your childern is entierly up to you.. and your self interest, unfortunately, but it is just part of reality, that some children will be raised in less than proper families, others will be raised in great families.. this is just human nature..no matter the system we run or the laws we make, there is no way we can ever get rid of this .. so if you wish to have your children grow up in a good family.. that is your self interest.. and it is in their best self interest that you do not have them until you are capable of doing so without sacrificing your own happiness as taht would make for an immoral and un-good family dynamic.. so in the end self interst and non altruism always wins as the best choice.. and if you wish to regulate what is good for all of society.. dont worry about shouting to the world how righteous you are ad how they should follow your example.. instead do what you do.. and vote..there is nothing else we relaly can do about it other than make rational laws for regulation.. for example.. it is still all self interest to feed your children and clothe them, because due to the laws of teh entity we have elected to have through self interest, adults are responsible for their children to the degree which the law has decided, and if you go too far you will be charged with child abuse which will cause you more trouble than your self interested self desires to bear...

8. am i saying that the government should intrude in our personal lives unneccesarily? no.. and our representative republic model in the usa handles this perfectly by constitutional (perhaps not current) theory.. since we as "societal groups" willingly elect our representatives to make laws which would be the best for society.. and therefore we indirectly as groups decide what is best for us as groups.. society will end up through this process finding and evolving laws for that of RATIONAL self interest.. in other words.. that which works.. and which leaves society as a unit maximally satisfied.. there will never be the perfect utopia.. but we can make the best laws possible.. such as curernt child abuse laws.. laws for children to be educated.. etc.. which our own people and society see fit.. this is different from the dictatorial model of governmet intruding ito family life.. since by the reprsentative model, if the people decide that the laws are not in their best mass self interest, tehy will vote the representatives out of office..

therefore.. individual self interest.. and mass self interest.. is all taken care of by one giant objectivist style system of rational self interest which is inherent in the american constitution ad the american way...

i hope that clears some shit up..

in other words.. keep freely following all your rational self interest entirely...

objectivism works

no need for mystic duty..

not all of life will always be purely utopian with all children being equal and everything great and rosy no matter what system you have.. even nature itself is set up that way.. we have the cards we are dealt.. life is not total about equality and utopia.. that is un natural and does not work as communist systems have proven

it is up to you and within your rational self interest how you wish to raise your children within the confines of the law.. and how you wish to interact with your family.. and there is no need for any sort of un secular, irrational mystical morality

vote

follow the law

[Selene]

Maybe you should learn to spell.

[Mark]

“When you bring children into the world, you sacrifice your own sovereignty and become a means to an end. The end, the primary concern, are the children.”

is Ayn Rand speaking in

www.youtube.com/watch?t=128&v=OP7cj8GI3h4

This audio as video seems to be excerpts from her Ford Hall Forum talk "Of Living Death" except that the above quote, and the preceding five sentences, are not in the printed versions, either in The Objectivist or in The Voice of Reason.

If it's true -- is it ? -- that it's from the Ford Hall Forum talk "Of Living Death" then it looks like Ayn Rand herself thought there was something wrong with it.

[anthony]

If you read it as : "Don't have a child". That's obvious madness. Only the most superficial take on Rand and rationality would conclude that.

If as: "When you do have one, and especially during the time you are bringing her up and she is all dependent on you, nothing can take (or should take) precedence over her" - that's rational child-rearing.

As far as "sacrifice" or sacrifice, of your own sovereignty goes -- It occurs now and then, that I only really know how much I do value something by what I would instantly pay, "sacrifice", for the value.

"A greater value for a lesser one (or non-value)"? They can appear to run pretty even at times. But a couple anticipating the ongoing "future value" of a child to them tips the balance.

So much for 'Rand was dismissive of children and having kids'. She handled the idea more seriously than do most.

[Mark]

What I quoted is not in the printed version of "Of Living Death" in The Objectivist journal, published by Rand. I think it is from her talk by that name, and was therefore excised by Rand before publishing it, strongly suggesting that she thought it was incorrect or unclear.

If you read it as : "Don't have a child". ... Only the most superficial take on Rand and rationality would conclude that.

If by "take on Rand" you mean her other work, yes, and not even superficial. But right here she says exactly that.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know where you get "madness" from. Tony. It does seem Rand's positions on children (and abortion) had a lot to do with her own life choices and she didn't quite do the universalizing right. She made her personal power out front and strong with the absolutism grounded in deductive reasoning. She never learned that after you do that you consider your conclusions empirically. If you start with a principle, say a woman has a right to an abortion, and go to the logical conclusion that she has a right to a partial birth abortion and stop there, that's ideological reasoning. (Even Ayn Rand had to retreat somewhat to the first tri-mester.) Empirically you then examine what that really means in real life from using any form of birth control at all (prior to conception even) to killing a completely viable and normal baby still medically considered a "fetus" because it was taken from the mother's womb (and its body parts harvested). Her absolutism was strongest in her moral and ethical voice and reflects the same problem. But it was in almost every opinion she expressed turbo-charged or greased up further by that marvelous Russian accent. The Russian culture she came out of was fond of that kind of thing. (I had that experience with a Russian female immigrant several decades ago and she came across like Rand that way.) Don't get me wrong; it's a marvelous way of expressing yourself and I wish we could see and hear more of it instead of so much avoiding the point wishy-washy.

--Brant

[anthony]

I don't know where you get "madness" from. Tony. It does seem Rand's positions on children (and abortion) had a lot to do with her own life choices and she didn't quite do the universalizing right. She made her personal power out front and strong with the absolutism grounded in deductive reasoning. She never learned that after you do that you consider your conclusions empirically. If you start with a principle, say a woman has a right to an abortion, and go to the logical conclusion that she has a right to a partial birth abortion and stop there, that's ideological...

--Brant

Brant and Mark, I haven't viewed the relevant clip, (I was directed straight to a nasty rant on RussiaToday by one of those USA-hating Americans who always crop up there, trying to smash Rand and capitalism by way of "greedy corporatism". I'll try it again).

Madness, yeah. It's total subjective rationalism on Rand's part to claim that what suited her, her career, etc., would universally go for all other rational individuals. Objectivists shouldn't have children...!

Considering too, the priority she placed on romantic love. A child that eventuates from such a love, brought up by deeply thinking realists as parents, surely adds to their values (and his), not detracts. Who better as parents? And if some years of one's sovereign individualism (not permanent or complete anyway) is dedicated to another being as end in himself, what of it? How delicate is such "individualism" that nothing else must intrude? Is it a sacrifice when it is a rational choice? What's the consequence when only -presumably- less rational folks have children, while true individualists hold themselves above such a basic reality as parenting? Excuse the rhetorical questions...heh.

Rand doesn't make sense here, if I understand this right. It's her self-contradiction. I hope and assume she re-thought it completely.

[merjet]

Ayn Rand wrote: “The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material” (VoS, 31). 'Only' and 'all'? What about relationships between parents and their children? When parents feed, clothe, educate, and otherwise provide the basics of life to their young children, what do the children trade, or give up, in return that is of equal or roughly equal value? In a commercial trade each party provides the counterparty with something that can be called a cost to the said party. For example, I buy a new car from a dealer. The cost to me is the money I pay. The cost to the dealer is what he paid for the car plus some overhead. In the case of parents providing for their children, what is child’s cost that is the counterpart of the dealer’s cost?

[anthony]

Trade (value for value) is equally spiritual.

[merjet]

Trade (value for value) is equally spiritual.

An infant or toddler giving up or receiving something the infant or toddler values spiritually is beyond my comprehension. Do you have a good example?

[Brant Gaede]

If what you say is true, Tony, it can only be true if she were generally mad. Make that case first--before you slap on the label.

--Brant

or denature the concept

[Selene]

This is a great thread.

I have always believed since attending NBI, that this was one of the third rails of Objectivism.

One sad fact is that Ayn's genes were not passed on to mankind.

I would have been fascinated to see how she and Frank and the "Coven" would have raised a "man-child" of hers...there is a novel in there someplace lol.

[anthony]

If what you say is true, Tony, it can only be true if she were generally mad. Make that case first--before you slap on the label.

--Brant

or denature the concept

One swallow does not the summer make. You've seen me over time - boringly sometimes I'm sure - support almost everything Rand wrote.

It's interesting for once to be on the 'other side', to point out that she must be wrong, by her own absolute standards of life and value. 'Madness', by her own uncompromising standards which one should hold her to, is a whole different thing to 'madness' as one might see generally.

[anthony]

Trade (value for value) is equally spiritual.

An infant or toddler giving up or receiving something the infant or toddler values spiritually is beyond my comprehension. Do you have a good example?

The infant is an end in itself, and a potential. He gives spiritual value to parents in the pleasure of his nurturing and growth. So much in their image at first, yet increasingly into his later years, his independent self emerges until he rewards their efforts, and is ready to go his own way. He knows implicitly he can take spiritual value from the consciousness, supportive actions or memory of his parents, always.

[anthony]

Some very smart words by David Kelley which I think so often apply to seemingly intractable O'ist debates.

"Fundamentally, the choice is objectivity versus non-objectivity in its various forms. Being objective in practice however, does require a kind of mental balancing that sometimes feels like striking a compromise.

We have to hold in mind the requirements both of reality and of our own nature, and if we focus too narrowly on one or the other, we tend to slide into intrinsicism or subjectivism". (Truth and Toleration, TCLOAR)

I believe any errors in Objectivism are 'issue-philosophical' (rough term), to do with wrongful applications of methodology, not errors of the fundamentals: axioms, principles and method. Now and again on some issue, it certainly can be a narrow path between subjectivity and intrinsicism, and in trying to avoid one, definitely one may slip into the other. (The immigration argument was a case in point). I think Rand in handling all the many ad lib questions about immediate "issues" was unerringly spot on - but think she tended toward subjectivity on this issue. (At least, as she first responded).