NationStates Jolt Archive

This has always been a criticism of Objectivism for me: the idea that everyone pays for everything. If that were true, it would dictate that children should pay for their upbringing. Oddly enough, Ayn Rand seems to skip over that in her novels. Perhaps she discusses it in her non-fiction, but I couldn't stomach the idea of reading more of her work after reading Atlas Shrugged.

Now that we have a market price for the work done by a homemaker and parent, http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/02/mothers.worth/index.html , we can easily calculate how much Objectivists should charge their own children.

But who would really charge their kids that much money? No one. And this is why Objectivism is one of the most, if not the most, unrealistic philosophies ever spawned by the human frontal lobe.

Ah...I don't think you fully understand objectivism, there.

You must have had a REALLY nice mother.

There are ways of making you pay, in terms other than money...

how about a lifetime of guilty feelings?

Ah...I don't think you fully understand objectivism, there.

Perhaps I don't. If you think you could educate me about this aspect of Objectivism, I would be glad to learn.

Thanks in advance.

You pay your children instead. *nod*

Perhaps I don't. If you think you could educate me about this aspect of Objectivism, I would be glad to learn.

Thanks in advance.

Well, my expertise in the field of objectivism is limited, as I am not one (despite a minor flirtation with the philosophy last summer), but I'll try.

Not everything needs to be paid for in an objectivist viewpoint, in fact, voluntary unpaid labor is not necessarily frowned upon. Rather, if it brings actual fulfillment and helps another to reach the "objectivist ideal" then it is acceptable. Coercing people to give up their time and effort though, is unjust.

You pay your children instead. *nod*

Exactly. That's the way it works in real life. Instead of paying your parents back, you pay it forward, so to speak, by making the same sacrifice for your children.

And unless I'm misunderstanding Objectivism, that would not occur in an Objectivist society.

Well, my expertise in the field of objectivism is limited, as I am not one (despite a minor flirtation with the philosophy last summer), but I'll try.

Not everything needs to be paid for in an objectivist viewpoint, in fact, voluntary unpaid labor is not necessarily frowned upon. Rather, if it brings actual fulfillment and helps another to reach the "objectivist ideal" then it is acceptable. Coercing people to give up their time and effort though, is unjust.

Taking an example from Atlas Shrugged, we have that scene where John Galt borrows a car from some other capitalist when Dagny Taggart comes to Galt's Gulch. He pays for the car, effectively renting it. When Taggart asks why Galt paid for it, since the other guy wasn't even using it, he states that unpaid labor is immoral, even if it is voluntary.

Also, there are elements of childraising that are involuntary, though it would be a stretch to say that they are coerced. When the child is hungry, the parent must feed the child, even if the parent does not want to, or is engaged in another activity. Other examples include saving the child from threatening situations. It has to be done, regardless of the will of the parent.

And while being a parent is fulfilling, most of the day to day work involved is not fulfilling at all. Like laundry.

My understanding is that the parents decide that it would make them happier to have a child so they invest their emotional and monetary resources into the child. The child is a great source of happiness for the parents so pays for itself. In the realm of human relationships the currency is virtue not dollars.

My understanding is that the parents decide that it would make them happier to have a child so they invest their emotional and monetary resources into the child. The child is a great source of happiness for the parents so pays for itself. In the realm of human relationships the currency is virtue not dollars.

Having a child does bring happiness, I agree, but many of the duties surrounding parenthood do not. Unless you really enjoy washing vomit out of car seats.

And there is also the issue of whether something as irrational as virtue can really be considered as currency within an Objectivist framework. It seems rather altruist to me.

By the way, does anyone know of any Objectivists who have had children?

By the way, does anyone know of any Objectivists who have had children?

That's a good question...

Did Ayn Rand have any children that lived?

Did Ayn Rand have any children that lived?

She had no children at all.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#ar_q4

She had no children at all.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#ar_q4

Ah, so no one was willing to pay her for sex, so she didn't have any...

By the way, does anyone know of any Objectivists who have had children?
my husband? we get into tiffs about me being a libertarian too.

according to him as long as I want to do what I am doing then he sees no problem with it.

my husband?

Really? How on Earth does he reconcile that with Christianity?

Really? How on Earth does he reconcile that with Christianity?

There are some aspects of Objectivism that can be reconciled with Christianity.

Just because you characterize yourself as an Objectivist (or a Christian) doesn't mean that you believe 100% of either.

my husband? we get into tiffs about me being a libertarian too.

according to him as long as I want to do what I am doing then he sees no problem with it.

If I understand you correctly, your husband is an Objectivist. How does he reconcile the self-sacrifice involved in parenthood with the Objectivist maxim of selfishness as a vitrue?

I am also curious as to how he reconciles his love for his children with the Objectivist idea that love is supposed to be based on admiring a person's virtues and abilities, while newborns have neither of these things?

Thanks in advance for any answers you may provide.

Really? How on Earth does he reconcile that with Christianity?

why wouldn't he be able to? :p the answer is he believes all of one and about half of the other.......and he was actually a satanist when we met which is much easier to reconcile with objectivism.

we get along in most things, politically we are often at odds.

Really? How on Earth does he reconcile that with Christianity?

I was curious about that, too. But I thought I would leave it for another thread, as it deserves one of its own.

If I understand you correctly, your husband is an Objectivist. How does he reconcile the self-sacrifice involved in parenthood with the Objectivist maxim of selfishness as a vitrue?

I am also curious as to how he reconciles his love for his children with the Objectivist idea that love is supposed to be based on admiring a person's virtues and abilities, while newborns have neither of these things?

Thanks in advance for any answers you may provide.

I think he has a rationalization that I don't understand. I am not an objectivist (even though I am quite selfish at times) so, I never really understood all of it.

I can understand some of it, which is mostly the parts he agrees with.

I think he has a rationalization that I don't understand. I am not an objectivist (even though I am quite selfish at times) so, I never really understood all of it.

I can understand some of it, which is mostly the parts he agrees with.

I'd really like to hear/read it. And for the record, I think most of us manage to be selfish at times without being Objectivists. :)

There are some aspects of Objectivism that can be reconciled with Christianity.

Like what? From what I understand of Objectivism, it is pretty much the polar opposite of Christ's message.

Just because you characterize yourself as an Objectivist (or a Christian) doesn't mean that you believe 100% of either.

This is certainly true, but classifying oneself as an Objectivist and a Christian, from what I understand, would be like classifying oneself as both a Communist and a free market capitalist.


I can understand some of it, which is mostly the parts he agrees with.
I'd really like to hear/read it. And for the record, I think most of us manage to be selfish at times without being Objectivists.

Indeed. Even those who believe that selfishness is a bad thing will find themselves acting selfishly at times.

The subject of child rearing is covered at length in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Like many other aspects of the philosophy it is grossly misunderstood by most.

The child, like any other value, has a cost that the parents have to be willing to deal with. "Self sacrifice" is an inaccurate term, since the parents would only be sacrificing something if the object or value they get in return is worth less than what they sacrificed for it (anything else is a trade or even a gain).

This has always been a criticism of Objectivism for me: the idea that everyone pays for everything. If that were true, it would dictate that children should pay for their upbringing.

Why ? The children did not ask to be born - that was the parents decision. Them having to pay until the child reaches adulthood can be argued to be part of the "having a child package".

However, ignoring the objectivist aspect, I have no problem with the idea of children buying themselves free from their parents (like a dowry). Especially if nothing stops the parents from giving the child a much bigger present later ;)

I'd really like to hear/read it. And for the record, I think most of us manage to be selfish at times without being Objectivists. :)

I agree - I'm often selfish (and I think all, or almost all, humans are, at least initially), but I'm far from Objectivism. I hate Objectivism almost as much as I hate the KKK and Nazis. I'm a Marxist/Socialist.

I'd really like to hear/read it. And for the record, I think most of us manage to be selfish at times without being Objectivists. :)

I guess he is mostly in the "you are responsible for your own happiness" group, in the sense that if you are unhappy it's your fault. We are both big on personal responsibility, and we are raising our children to be as well. It's good to question why you do things, and if something isn't working for you it's your responsibility to change it. In the end we can only control our own actions so in the end we are only really accountable to ourselves. Be the kind of person you can live with.

Like I said I read Ayn Rand, got a bunch of good stuff out of it, but I am by no means comfortable enough to call myself objectivist.

Like what? From what I understand of Objectivism, it is pretty much the polar opposite of Christ's message.
how so?

The subject of child rearing is covered at length in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. Like many other aspects of the philosophy it is grossly misunderstood by most.

The child, like any other value, has a cost that the parents have to be willing to deal with. "Self sacrifice" is an inaccurate term, since the parents would only be sacrificing something if the object or value they get in return is worth less than what they sacrificed for it (anything else is a trade or even a gain).

So, is the child thought of as an investment, then? I put x amount of value/money/work into this person, and I expect to receive (x + y) in return. Has this ever worked? I ask this because I see no way for my children to compensate me for the amount of time and energy I have already invested in their lives, and my oldest is only five. If we take the study discussed in the OP link, my children now owe me almost a million dollars.

Why ? The children did not ask to be born - that was the parents decision. Them having to pay until the child reaches adulthood can be argued to be part of the "having a child package".

However, ignoring the objectivist aspect, I have no problem with the idea of children buying themselves free from their parents (like a dowry). Especially if nothing stops the parents from giving the child a much bigger present later ;)

That implies that the parent enters into the situation with informed and rational consent. I do not think that is possible as it is impossible to imagine the extent of the changes that children bring into your life. And this is assuming that the child does not develop additional problems from disease or injury that can not be predicted.

So, is the child thought of as an investment, then? I put x amount of value/money/work into this person, and I expect to receive (x + y) in return. Has this ever worked? I ask this because I see no way for my children to compensate me for the amount of time and energy I have already invested in their lives, and my oldest is only five. If we take the study discussed in the OP link, my children now owe me almost a million dollars.

you have a pretty low opinion of your children then? All of the work put into my children is an investment, and a good one at that, I am reaping rewards far beyond my investment daily.

That implies that the parent enters into the situation with informed and rational consent. I do not think that is possible as it is impossible to imagine the extent of the changes that children bring into your life. And this is assuming that the child does not develop additional problems from disease or injury that can not be predicted.

there is inherent risk in any investment, so what's your point?

I guess he is mostly in the "you are responsible for your own happiness" group, in the sense that if you are unhappy it's your fault. We are both big on personal responsibility, and we are raising our children to be as well. It's good to question why you do things, and if something isn't working for you it's your responsibility to change it. In the end we can only control our own actions so in the end we are only really accountable to ourselves. Be the kind of person you can live with.

Like I said I read Ayn Rand, got a bunch of good stuff out of it, but I am by no means comfortable enough to call myself objectivist.

I agree with the first paragraph entirely, and like you I do not self-identify as an Objectivist. And while I am grateful for your response, it does not answer what I feel are the irreconcilable differences between what Rand says and what childraising is.

I agree with the first paragraph entirely, and like you I do not self-identify as an Objectivist. And while I am grateful for your response, it does not answer what I feel are the irreconcilable differences between what Rand says and what childraising is.

maybe I can talk my husband into replying later.......he is at work now, so I can't really bother him.

you have a pretty low opinion of your children then? All of the work put into my children is an investment, and a good one at that, I am reaping rewards far beyond my investment daily.

there is inherent risk in any investment, so what's your point?

You are a far faster typist than I am.

I do not have a low opinion of my children. I am merely questioning their ability to repay if we see childraising as solely a financial investment, which is how I interpreted Melkor's post. My personal view is that my children repay me by simply being healthy and happy, but that means nothing according to Objectivist philosophy as I understand it. This is because my 'payback' only exists in my mind because I am an altruist.

And while there is a certain amount of risk in any investment, I do not htink it is possible to know what the risks are in child raising, or even the extent of the risk. Any return on your investment is based on the assumption that your children will also see your relationship form an Objectivist standpoint and will pay you back. I would argue that such a risk is so great as to make the investment not worthwhile.

maybe I can talk my husband into replying later.......he is at work now, so I can't really bother him.

I would appreciate that. Thank you.

how so?

Selfishness vs. self-sacrifice
Altruism = evil vs. altruism=good
love as a transaction vs. love as freely given (even to enemies)

and so on....

Indeed, the very message of Christianity revolves around the idea that Christ's self-sacrifice was not only good - but was the best gift that could ever be given. In Rand's view, Christ's actions would have been the epitomy of evil.

And Christ makes it clear that a follower must not be selfish - must be willing to give up everything he owns - that which he may cherish - to follow in Christ's footsteps.

Like I said I read Ayn Rand, got a bunch of good stuff out of it, but I am by no means comfortable enough to call myself objectivist.

I tried to read Rand. All I got out of it is the fact that Rand was a crappy author and had some serious issues. Oh, and 40 pages of "A equals A," to which I wanted to answer, "Are you proud of yourself that you figured that out?"

well thats only for the first couple of years. maybe it goes up more a few years later.but by the time the child is old enough to feed and wipe itself that value has to drop a little. im not paying my mom to just stand around. ;)

Kids never choose to be born, or unless they can prove sperm thinks, why should they penanced for that? They have their whole lives of paying for things they need instead of want.

. Any return on your investment is based on the assumption that your children will also see your relationship form an Objectivist standpoint and will pay you back.

Maybe the fact that your children contain a large part of your genetic material can be factored into this ?

Melkor, I am just curious, what do you think of David Kelley and his works on Rand and Objectivism?


I do not have a low opinion of my children. I am merely questioning their ability to repay if we see childraising as solely a financial investment, which is how I interpreted Melkor's post. My personal view is that my children repay me by simply being healthy and happy, but that means nothing according to Objectivist philosophy as I understand it. This is because my 'payback' only exists in my mind because I am an altruist.
I presume the compensation you gain from your children is psychic reward (the problem being here that to reduce this to selfish impulses would render pointless the very meaning of the word). Not everything of value is monetised, and Objectivism does not suggest that this ought to be so. That said, I am not a proponent of the system, not at least without first seeing a full-blown explication and defence made on its behalf.

Kids never choose to be born, or unless they can prove sperm thinks, why should they penanced for that? They have their whole lives of paying for things they need instead of want.

Reminds me of this...

You know, before I was your little son, before I was your baby, before I was your LOAN, I was a free spirit in the next stage of life. I walked in the cosmos, not imprisoned by a body of flesh, but free, in a pure body of light. There were no questions, only answers, no weaknesses, only strengths, I was light, I was truth, I was a spiritual being, I was a God... but you had to FUCK and bring my ass down HERE. I didn't ask to be born! I didn't call and say: 'Hey, please have me so I could work in a fuckin' Winchell's someday!' Now you want me to pay my own way? ... FUCK YOU! PICK UP THE FUCKIN' CHECK, MOM! PICK IT UP!'

I very strongly recommend people watch The Trap, a really good documentary by the guy who made The Power of Nightmares, and Century of the Self (both also very good).

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=8372545413887273321&q=curtis+trap

He attacks the idea that social interactions are governed (or should be governed) by selfish motives. I think any attempt to apply pure economics to society is pretty foolish, because humans aren't purely rational, selfish agents.

Selfishness vs. self-sacrifice
personal responsbility vs. doing what others want you to
Altruism = evil vs. altruism=good
forced altruism= evil vs. voluntary altruism=good

love as a transaction vs. love as freely given (even to enemies)
eh...you got me on that one......*consults hubby*



Indeed, the very message of Christianity revolves around the idea that Christ's self-sacrifice was not only good - but was the best gift that could ever be given. In Rand's view, Christ's actions would have been the epitomy of evil.
no, because it was voluntary.

And Christ makes it clear that a follower must not be selfish - must be willing to give up everything he owns - that which he may cherish - to follow in Christ's footsteps.
voluntarily.

Reminds me of this...

Thanks for that Remote Observer. Now I know I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Sam Kinison, Wow.

Because being old enough to have a real job and make real money and being an objectivist are mutually exclusive.

personal responsbility vs. doing what others want you to

First of all, those two are not mutually exclusive. Second of all, I don't see what it has to do with the discussion at hand. One can certainly refuse to be selfish without giving up personal responsibility or doing what others want you to.

forced altruism= evil vs. voluntary altruism=good

That's fine, but it isn't Rand's philosophy. She was clear that ALL altruism is evil. Everything must be done with only oneself in mind.

The idea of forced vs. voluntary altruism is really more of a libertarian discussion.

eh...you got me on that one......*consults hubby*

*waits*

no, because it was voluntary.

Irrelevant. In Rand's philosophy, it could only be a good action if Christ died only for himself. If he actually did it for others, and not for his own satisfaction, it is an evil action.

voluntarily.

Doesn't matter. In Rand's philosophy, ownership is pretty much all you have. Even love is a form of "ownership." To give up all that you own would be to give up yourself to another - an anathema in objectivism.

Maybe the fact that your children contain a large part of your genetic material can be factored into this ?

Yes, I would assume so as well. But then we have to ask the question, how is helping out your genes actually selfish? It may help your species, but it does not help you as an individual.

Also, I believe that Objectivists value reason over instinct, and it is primarily, if not solely, an instinctive drive to ensure the continuance of your genetic legacy. There does not appear to be a rational reason to do so.

By the way, thanks everyone for making this such a flame free thread!

Yes, I would assume so as well. But then we have to ask the question, how is helping out your genes actually selfish? It may help your species, but it does not help you as an individual.

Precisely. And doing for others is an anathema according to Rand. Everything you do must be for yourself - even if it helps others - and no other.

Also, I believe that Objectivists value reason over instinct, and it is primarily, if not solely, an instinctive drive to ensure the continuance of your genetic legacy. There does not appear to be a rational reason to do so.

Maybe a sort of "immortality"?

Melkor, I am just curious, what do you think of David Kelley and his works on Rand and Objectivism?


I presume the compensation you gain from your children is psychic reward (the problem being here that to reduce this to selfish impulses would render pointless the very meaning of the word). Not everything of value is monetised, and Objectivism does not suggest that this ought to be so. That said, I am not a proponent of the system, not at least without first seeing a full-blown explication and defence made on its behalf.

Yes, I think any reconciliation between Objectivism and parenting would have to involve different definitions for value and selfishness. Whether or not this redefinition would make the meanings pointless is something that would have to be seen once we see the explanation.

Yes, I would assume so as well. But then we have to ask the question, how is helping out your genes actually selfish? It may help your species, but it does not help you as an individual.

Also, I believe that Objectivists value reason over instinct, and it is primarily, if not solely, an instinctive drive to ensure the continuance of your genetic legacy. There does not appear to be a rational reason to do so.

By the way, thanks everyone for making this such a flame free thread!

Yeah, It reminds me of the common squid. It gives up its life just for procreation. Now, the difference here is we have an Id, Ego, and Super ego. Sex is a primary reinforcer, but raising the product is something entirely different. What exactly? I don't know, I have no kids.

Yeah, It reminds me of the common squid. It gives up its life just for procreation. Now, the difference here is we have an Id, Ego, and Super ego. Sex is a primary reinforcer, but raising the product is something entirely different. What exactly? I don't know, I have no kids.

I have kids, and I often feel like the squid you mentioned, i.e. I gave my life for them. This is one of the reasons that I don't think that the Objectivist answer that "it brings so much happiness that you get paid back" makes any sense.

Sometimes, I get so tired and my kids are so demanding that I want to yell at them, but I don't. Because it would be selfish of me.

Maybe Objectivists don't pay their mothers because when Dad paid for the sex, he paid for the whole deal.

Precisely. And doing for others is an anathema according to Rand. Everything you do must be for yourself - even if it helps others - and no other.
Rand worked off a specific conception of altruism, i.e. that it entails sacrifice, and that sacrifice is always substitution of a higher value for a lower one. If, for instance, you love someone else, Rand's ideal egoist would do so because any effort involved would be compensated by the value one derives from this other individual. It's similar to a person forsaking present consumption in order to yield greater returns from a future investment, but not entirely analogous. In both cases the costs are exceeded by the benefits. (Ideal) love is selfish, according to her, because it is you who evaluates the other person's worth and deems them to be of a higher value (to you) than something else. Again, I am not sure if this reduction to selfish impulses is entirely possible. It might be. I haven't read enough to know.

Something to keep in mind is that at all times Rand is outlining how she believes people ought to behave - she is not justifying modes of action that contravene her philosophy, nor is she reinterpreting all action to fit her worldview.

Rand worked off a specific conception of altruism, i.e. that it entails sacrifice, and that sacrifice is always substitution of a higher value for a lower one. If, for instance, you love someone else, Rand's ideal egoist would do so because any effort involved would be compensated by the value one derives from this other individual. It's similar to a person forsaking present consumption in order to yield greater returns from a future investment, but not entirely analogous. In both cases the costs are exceeded by the benefits. (Ideal) love is selfish, according to her, because it is you who evaluates the other person's worth and deems them to be of a higher value (to you) than something else. Again, I am not sure if this reduction to selfish impulses is entirely possible. It might be. I haven't read enough to know.

Something to keep in mind is that at all times Rand is outlining how she believes people ought to behave - she is not justifying modes of action that contravene her philosophy, nor is she reinterpreting all action to fit her worldview.

How do you think this would apply to child raising? Does the parent evaluate the child's worth and deems it to be of a higher value than the effort required in raising them? This estimation of worth would have to be rationally derived, I think.

How do you think this would apply to child raising? Does the parent evaluate the child's worth and deems it to be of a higher value than the effort required in raising them? This estimation of worth would have to be rationally derived, I think.

That lays open the possibility that the parent finds the child to be worthless.

Because being old enough to have a real job and make real money and being an objectivist are mutually exclusive.

I'm sure Melkor will be interested to learn that. Apparently he didn't get the memo.

That lays open the possibility that the parent finds the child to be worthless.

Yes, it does. Or maybe not worthless, but worth less than the effort/cost required to raise the child. This is an entirely rational viewpoint, and would explain why the vast majority of Objectivists do not have children.

Yes, it does. Or maybe not worthless, but worth less than the effort/cost required to raise the child. This is an entirely rational viewpoint, and would explain why the vast majority of Objectivists do not have children.

No, I think it's an earlier rational decision.

To them, sex is labor. So, unless someone is going to pay them to have sex, they won't have it.

How do you think this would apply to child raising? Does the parent evaluate the child's worth and deems it to be of a higher value than the effort required in raising them? This estimation of worth would have to be rationally derived, I think.
More or less so. I would imagine a parent could view the child as an investment, just as, say, donating funds to build a community library might be regarded as one. The investor values the result of the investment more than his input. Naturally, there is an element of rational estimation. There should always be, even if one is not an Objectivist. A child is a massive responsibity, and one should be aware of the costs, both pecuniary and psychic, that they will undergo, and that it may not be worth it. Some people are simply not fit to be parents. The worth involved is ordinal, not cardinal, just as you say you prefer Coke over Pepsi, but you cannot quantify this (for instance, to say I prefer Coke 2.4003 times to Pepsi).

Yes, it does. Or maybe not worthless, but worth less than the effort/cost required to raise the child. This is an entirely rational viewpoint, and would explain why the vast majority of Objectivists do not have children.
If it is on these grounds that they do not have children, I applaud them. This is one area of life that always ought to be rationally thought out.

No, I think it's an earlier rational decision.

To them, sex is labor. So, unless someone is going to pay them to have sex, they won't have it.

do you have a source for that?

do you have a source for that?

No, but it's the logical conclusion of their philosophy.

Rand worked off a specific conception of altruism, i.e. that it entails sacrifice, and that sacrifice is always substitution of a higher value for a lower one.

This has always never made sense to me. It always seemed to me like Rand could use a dictionary. Sacrifice is usually used as a synonym for opportunity cost. Also, altruists would say they're substituting lower values for higher ones.

Because being old enough to have a real job and make real money and being an objectivist are mutually exclusive.

I would disagree with that. In fact, I would argue that unless a human reaches a certain level of maturity (i.e. the amount of maturity required to have a real job and make real money), they would not actually be capable of being sufficiently rational to be Objectivists.

I would disagree with that. In fact, I would argue that unless a human reaches a certain level of maturity (i.e. the amount of maturity required to have a real job and make real money), they would not actually be capable of being sufficiently rational to be Objectivists.

Point of fact, the real world is not always amenable to completely rational thought.

For starters, you have to deal with other human beings, who are innately irrational most of the time.

No, but it's the logical conclusion of their philosophy.

no it isn't.

This has always never made sense to me. It always seemed to me like Rand could use a dictionary. Sacrifice is usually used as a synonym for opportunity cost. Also, altruists would say they're substituting lower values for higher ones.
I've seen philosophers redefine terms quite frequently to suit their purposes. In some cases it renders the terms inoperable. This is one of those areas of Objectivism that is in need of greater rationalisation.

the vast majority of Objectivists do not have children.

...you know this based on what, exactly?

Let's see the studies correlating Objectivist philosophy with number of children had. I'm sure there are some, since you wouldn't just pull something like this out of your ass to join in the general Objectivism-bashing, would you? Nah.

No, I think it's an earlier rational decision.

To them, sex is labor. So, unless someone is going to pay them to have sex, they won't have it.

Not if they think that they are getting as much out of it as they put in. For example, if someone only gets sexual satisfaction by making the other person cum, they may feel that expending the effort required to make the person cum is a small price to pay for the satisfaction that they derive from it.

And I am not sure what you mean by 'No, I think it's an earlier rational decision.'

Point of fact, the real world is not always amenable to completely rational thought.

For starters, you have to deal with other human beings, who are innately irrational most of the time.
When dealing with a lion (arguably an irrational creature), do you go and stick your hand in its mouth? No, you do the rational thing and keep your distance. It is incumbent on the agent to behave rationally, as circumstances dictate.

No, but it's the logical conclusion of their philosophy.
View sex as a form of barter. Pleasure is the commodity being traded.

I am quoting that, even if I wrote it myself!

Point of fact, the real world is not always amenable to completely rational thought.

For starters, you have to deal with other human beings, who are innately irrational most of the time.

Again, this could be seen as another reason why Objectivists would not have children, as children are inherently irrational, or at least all the ones I've hung out with.

This has always been a criticism of Objectivism for me: the idea that everyone pays for everything. If that were true, it would dictate that children should pay for their upbringing.
Because the mother doesn't demand it.

Objectivists will happily accept free stuff if it's offered.

I've seen philosophers redefine terms quite frequently to suit their purposes. In some cases it renders the terms inoperable. This is one of those areas of Objectivism that is in need of greater rationalisation.

Correct. Who would ever give something up for something of lesser perceived value?

Point of fact, the real world is not always amenable to completely rational thought.

For starters, you have to deal with other human beings, who are innately irrational most of the time.
That doesn't prevent you from being wholly rational (I certainly try to be), but it does mean that often you'll have trouble communicating with them.

...you know this based on what, exactly?

Let's see the studies correlating Objectivist philosophy with number of children had. I'm sure there are some, since you wouldn't just pull something like this out of your ass to join in the general Objectivism-bashing, would you? Nah.

You are correct. I do not know for a fact that the vast majority of Objectivists are childless, but I don't see why Objectivists would have children, and while I know several Objectivists, none of them have kids. Smunkee's husband appears to be the exception rather than the rule. If I were to find out that most Objectivists had children, I would be surprised.

But you are correct that it is an assumption on my part. Do you have anything that shows that most Objectivists do have children?

And while I see some people in this thread have questions or criticisms concerning Objectivism, I would not characterise these as Objectivist bashing, but you may have a different opinion.

Correct. Who would ever give something up for something of lesser perceived value?
Presumably, no rational agent. This is what Rand insisted upon. Couching it in terms of altruism and selfishness is what leads to confusion. If she had simply said "always rationally pursue a higher value over a lower one in order to maximise your self-interest" it might not have been as contentious.

...you know this based on what, exactly?

Let's see the studies correlating Objectivist philosophy with number of children had. I'm sure there are some, since you wouldn't just pull something like this out of your ass to join in the general Objectivism-bashing, would you? Nah.
There is a difference between bashing Objectivism and trying to better comprehend it and its adherents. I don't think Gift-of-God can be blamed for the former (yet). Personally, some of the finer points of Objectivism are fuzzy to me as well (e.g. virtues), and I could do with some clarification on them.

You are correct. I do not know for a fact that the vast majority of Objectivists are childless, but I don't see why Objectivists would have children, and while I know several Objectivists, none of them have kids.

Well you know, I don't see why marijuana smokers would have children, and while I know several marijuana smokers, none of them have kids.

Therefore, the vast majority of marijuana smokers don't have children!


But you are correct that it is an assumption on my part. Do you have anything that shows that most Objectivists do have children?

I don't need to. You're the one making the statement, it appears you had no support behind it whatsoever and it was thus just your opinion being painted as some sort of valid statistic.

And while I see some people in this thread have questions or criticisms concerning Objectivism, I would not characterise these as Objectivist bashing, but you may have a different opinion.

This is not a question or criticism, it's just bashing:

Because being old enough to have a real job and make real money and being an objectivist are mutually exclusive.

You are correct. I do not know for a fact that the vast majority of Objectivists are childless, but I don't see why Objectivists would have children, and while I know several Objectivists, none of them have kids. Smunkee's husband appears to be the exception rather than the rule. If I were to find out that most Objectivists had children, I would be surprised.

But you are correct that it is an assumption on my part. Do you have anything that shows that most Objectivists do have children?
I know quite a few objectivists, and the one who has children has done so explicitly because she wants to shift the balance of opinion in society (one objectivist child can significantly skew a classroom).

Because the mother doesn't demand it.

Objectivists will happily accept free stuff if it's offered.

I am not sure that they would. John Galt refuses free stuff in at least one instance in Atlas Shrugged.

Presumably, no rational agent. This is what Rand insisted upon.

I can't think of any agent who would, rational or not. The difference is that rational agents are usually better at actually getting what they want in the long run. Their perception is generally better.

Well you know, I don't see why marijuana smokers would have children, and while I know several marijuana smokers, none of them have kids.

Therefore, the vast majority of marijuana smokers don't have children!



I don't need to. You're the one making the statement, it appears you had no support behind it whatsoever and it was thus just your opinion being painted as some sort of valid statistic.



This is not a question or criticism, it's just bashing:

But marijuana smokers do not make a virtue of selfishness or rationality, both of which seem irreconcilable with child raising. So my train of thought has some logic to it, while the example you gave does not.

So neither of us have any information with regards to how many Objectivists have children. I admitted that it was a supposition on my part. What more would you like?

And you are correct that that one post is Objectivist bashing, and some of Remote Observer's posts could also be interprteted as such, but I have either ignored them or replied to them in a manner that I consider to be supportive of a more objective view of Objectivism. While I am unable to keep people from such behaviour in this htread, I am attempting to minimise it.

I know quite a few objectivists, and the one who has children has done so explicitly because she wants to shift the balance of opinion in society (one objectivist child can significantly skew a classroom).

Interesting. This would be a rational reason for Objectivists having children, as having a more Objectivist society would be beneficial to the parent, and so could be considered selfish.

However, I am reminded of a quote from Children of the Mind: 'We do what we do, and then rationalise it afterwards', and this may be case of such behaviour. I say this because there would be easier and less costly ways to make society generally more Objectivist, such as starting an Objectivist political party. Alberta would be a great place to do that!

I can't think of any agent who would, rational or not.
Neither can I. Essentially Rand argued against ideologies that promoted her concept of altruism. Christianity, for instance, advocates sexual abstinence universally, whether this is in one's interest or not (it naturally assumes it is always in one's interest to be chaste - I am willing to be corrected if this somehow misrepresents the religion.) Some agents will surely see the sacrifice as worthwhile. Others will not (and will thus by force sacrifice a higher value for a lower one, were they to be "good" Christians.)

The difference is that rational agents are usually better at actually getting what they want in the long run. Their perception is generally better.
I agree.

What I don't understand is why miserable people have kids. Do they think it will cheer them up like a puppy? If true, a start of a life should not be used as a diversion from ones problems.

Rand worked off a specific conception of altruism, i.e. that it entails sacrifice, and that sacrifice is always substitution of a higher value for a lower one. If, for instance, you love someone else, Rand's ideal egoist would do so because any effort involved would be compensated by the value one derives from this other individual.

....which would be a transaction, not love.

Something to keep in mind is that at all times Rand is outlining how she believes people ought to behave - she is not justifying modes of action that contravene her philosophy, nor is she reinterpreting all action to fit her worldview.

Rand absolutely does reinterpret all action to fit her worldview. The actual motivation behind any person's actions doesn't matter. The idea that a person could truly be altruistic is completely absent from Rand's worldview, so it must be an evil action related to wanting others to do what you cannot. In fact, all I got out of Atlas Shrugged was the impression that Rand's philosophy cannot work in the real world with real people - and that deep down, she knew it. She had to create a world full of completely one-dimensional characters, where pretty much everyone was either absolutely virtuous or absolutely evil (not to mention the inclusion of what was essentially a perpetual motion machine) to find a world in which her philosophy worked.

But one thing was clear -actions taken specifically to benefit others were an anathema to her. The actions must be taken to benefit yourself, with benefit to others being a possibility, but not the goal.

....which would be a transaction, not love.
Define love then.


Rand absolutely does reinterpret all action to fit her worldview. The actual motivation behind any person's actions doesn't matter.
I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is she did not try to rationalize Christian behaviour, for instance, to show how it would be consistent with her ideology. She outright condemned it.

The idea that a person could truly be altruistic is completely absent from Rand's worldview, so it must be an evil action related to wanting others to do what you cannot. In fact, all I got out of Atlas Shrugged was the impression that Rand's philosophy cannot work in the real world with real people - and that deep down, she knew it. She had to create a world full of completely one-dimensional characters, where pretty much everyone was either absolutely virtuous or absolutely evil (not to mention the inclusion of what was essentially a perpetual motion machine) to find a world in which her philosophy worked.
Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? This is where Rand outlines her moral philosophy in greatest detail. Atlas Shrugged is deliberately unrealistic. Rand believed good art should not conform to reality, but should seek to be manifestly romantic (i.e. unreal, supernormal).

....which would be a transaction, not love.



Rand absolutely does reinterpret all action to fit her worldview. The actual motivation behind any person's actions doesn't matter. The idea that a person could truly be altruistic is completely absent from Rand's worldview, so it must be an evil action related to wanting others to do what you cannot. In fact, all I got out of Atlas Shrugged was the impression that Rand's philosophy cannot work in the real world with real people - and that deep down, she knew it. She had to create a world full of completely one-dimensional characters, where pretty much everyone was either absolutely virtuous or absolutely evil (not to mention the inclusion of what was essentially a perpetual motion machine) to find a world in which her philosophy worked.

But one thing was clear -actions taken specifically to benefit others were an anathema to her. The actions must be taken to benefit yourself, with benefit to others being a possibility, but not the goal.

While I agree with you, I feel I should point out that Rand is not the totality of Objectivism; she is merely the founder. Other people continued and expanded Rand's work, and also dealt with the concept of love. here is alink to one such organisation:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--1265-Life_and_ObjectivismLove_and_trade.aspx

But a relationship in which there is love is based on trade. The relationship consists in doing things with another person that you both value. In a romantic relationship, we trade our time, regard, and consideration with the loved one, and receive in return the values of visibility, affection, and consideration that the other offers in return. In romance the visibility in particular can be very intimate and total, and the expression of one's regard can also be highly intimate as well. In its fullest sense, romantic love is a response to a full person, including both mental and physical traits. But it is response that occurs in exchange with another. It really does take two to tango, as they say.

And you are correct that it is a transaction, but the Objectivist philosophy does not regard love and transactions as mutually exclusive things. This is weird for me, as I define love differently.

And you are correct that it is a transaction, but the Objectivist philosophy does not regard love and transactions as mutually exclusive things. This is weird for me, as I define love differently.
This is why I asked for a definition of it, because to different people it means different things. I personally do agree with the Objectivist view of it.

Define love then.


I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is she did not try to rationalize Christian behaviour, for instance, to show how it would be consistent with her ideology. She outright condemned it.


Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? This is where Rand outlines her moral philosophy in greatest detail. Atlas Shrugged is deliberately unrealistic. Rand believed good art should not conform to reality, but should seek to be manifestly romantic (i.e. unreal, supernormal).

Oops, I think I misunderstod you too. Sorry.

By the way, do you know if there is a free online edition of The Virtue of Selfishness? I somehow doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

This has always never made sense to me. It always seemed to me like Rand could use a dictionary. Sacrifice is usually used as a synonym for opportunity cost. Also, altruists would say they're substituting lower values for higher ones.

Rand largely made up her own definitions for words. Even "selfish", in her work, meant something different from general use.

Selfish is generally defined as:

"1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>"

But Rand tends to ignore a key part of the definition (bolded). Thus, she argues, all actions are selfish because (essentially) we do them because we want to.


Because the mother doesn't demand it.

Objectivists will happily accept free stuff if it's offered.

This doesn't seem to fit with Rand's writings. It seemed pretty clear to me that she though offering something for free was an evil action (perhaps even insulting to the one it was offered to) and that accepting something for free was a definite evil action.


Define love then.

Love for another means that you would do for them without expectation of reciprocation - that you care for them enough to do so.

I think you misunderstood me. What I mean is she did not try to rationalize Christian behaviour to show how it would be consistent with her ideology. She outright condemned it.

Ah. I definitely wouldn't argue with that.

Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? This is where Rand outlines her moral philosophy in greatest detail.

After Atlas Shrugged, I really couldn't stomach any more. I'd rather read something worth my time.

Atlas Shrugged is deliberately unrealistic. Rand believed good art should not conform to reality, but should seek to be manifestly romantic (i.e. unreal, supernormal).

If she thought that book was "good art", I'd hate to see what she thought "bad art" was. Regardless of my issues with her philosophy, it was truly one of the worst pieces of fiction I've ever read in my life. There wasn't a single compelling character (which comes from being completely one-dimensional) and the 40-page essay on how "A equals A" was downright boring. It was only my obsession with finishing what I start (not to mention my need to see the end of a story, even if it is a crappy story -- never stick me in front of a B movie) that kept me reading to the end.

This is why I asked for a definition of it, because to different people it means different things. I personally do agree with the Objectivist view of it.

What is the point, then? Love is just another contract, worthy of no more consideration than anything else.

By the way, do you know if there is a free online edition of The Virtue of Selfishness? I somehow doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
There probably is one, though I am certainly not aware of it. I got the book for a rather low price off Amazon. It (http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-3887864-4359959?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178653696&sr=8-1) costs next to nothing.

Love for another means that you would do for them without expectation of reciprocation - that you care for them enough to do so.
Would you do things for them even if they just suddenly decided to get up and walk out on you? Isn't there at least a basic expectation that someone will remain loyal to you? I certainly would not do things for someone no longer in love with me.

If she thought that book was "good art", I'd hate to see what she thought "bad art" was. Regardless of my issues with her philosophy, it was truly one of the worst pieces of fiction I've ever read in my life. There wasn't a single compelling character (which comes from being completely one-dimensional) and the 40-page essay on how "A equals A" was downright boring. It was only my obsession with finishing what I start (not to mention my need to see the end of a story, even if it is a crappy story -- never stick me in front of a B movie) that kept me reading to the end.
I haven't really read her novels. I've only read her nonfiction works, with which in general I was quite impressed. From excerpts of her fiction it seems that it would appeal to me though.

maybe the question should be "why dont objecitivist mothers present their children with a bill?"

by the time a person can truly claim to be an objectivist he is no longer dependent upon his parents for support and has already racked up a bill with them too large to ever be able to pay.

so, i assume, he vows to pay his own way from that day on, to never mooch off his parents again, and to pay them back "in kind" to the best of his ability.

maybe the question should be "why dont objecitivist mothers present their children with a bill?"

by the time a person can truly claim to be an objectivist he is no longer dependent upon his parents for support and has already racked up a bill with them too large to ever be able to pay.

so, i assume, he vows to pay his own way from that day on, to never mooch off his parents again, and to pay them back "in kind" to the best of his ability.

I want to respond intelligently to this post, as it deserves, but I have to go pick up my kids. See you tomorrow, everyone!

Would you do things for them even if they just suddenly decided to get up and walk out on you? Isn't there at least a basic expectation that someone will remain loyal to you? I certainly would not do things for someone no longer in love with me.

That's just it - love doesn't work that way. I don't need someone else to love me for me to love them. That reciprocation is the basis of a relationship, but not of the underlying emotion. Love is about the person, not about what they do. You may find out things about the person - personality traits - that lead to a loss of that emotion, but an action itself cannot do it.

I haven't really read her novels. I've only read her nonfiction works, with which in general I was quite impressed. From excerpts of her fiction it seems that it would appeal to me though.

Meh. It probably depends on what you like or don't like about fiction. If you look for actually compelling characters with some depth, I'd say Rand is not the place to go.

"Self sacrifice" is an inaccurate term, since the parents would only be sacrificing something if the object or value they get in return is worth less than what they sacrificed for it (anything else is a trade or even a gain).

So all voluntary action isn't "self-sacrifice"?

Or it only isn't "self-sacrifice" if we don't perceive ourselves as "obligated" to do it? But then you must face the fact that most parents do perceive themselves as obligated to care for their children, that, indeed, a notion of obligation is bound up in love itself.

We've been through this before, I believe. I maintain, as I did then, that Objectivism cannot deal effectively with child-rearing (and similar examples of natural, fairly unambiguous altruism) without rendering meaningless most, if not all, of its normative claims - because if you reduce child-rearing to a simple matter of "I value my children", then you can reduce all duty towards others as a matter of "I value those others."

Indeed, perhaps I value forcing others to give up their property to feed hungry children, too. ;)

This doesn't seem to fit with Rand's writings. It seemed pretty clear to me that she though offering something for free was an evil action (perhaps even insulting to the one it was offered to) and that accepting something for free was a definite evil action.
Well, there are things I don't know.

Despite my position within the vast, right-wing conspiracy, I haven't ever read Rand (though I do own a complete Rand library).

Though, objectivists will never lend copies of Rand's books, but they will buy copies for other people. That's a gift.

Interesting. This would be a rational reason for Objectivists having children, as having a more Objectivist society would be beneficial to the parent, and so could be considered selfish.
It's actually the most compelling argument I have ever heard on why one should have children.

If you don't like the balance of opinion in society, you can shift it toward yours by having kids and teaching them your point of view.
However, I am reminded of a quote from Children of the Mind: 'We do what we do, and then rationalise it afterwards', and this may be case of such behaviour.
A rational agent would never do that. Action would only ever follow reason.

This has always been a criticism of Objectivism for me: the idea that everyone pays for everything. If that were true, it would dictate that children should pay for their upbringing. Oddly enough, Ayn Rand seems to skip over that in her novels. Perhaps she discusses it in her non-fiction, but I couldn't stomach the idea of reading more of her work after reading Atlas Shrugged.

Now that we have a market price for the work done by a homemaker and parent, http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/02/mothers.worth/index.html , we can easily calculate how much Objectivists should charge their own children.

But who would really charge their kids that much money? No one. And this is why Objectivism is one of the most, if not the most, unrealistic philosophies ever spawned by the human frontal lobe.

It's much, much worse than that. Many Objectivists don't believe the mother should care for the child in the first place.

But like you, I've never read any of her nonfiction, I was so appalled by how bad Atlas Shrugged was.

It's much, much worse than that. Many Objectivists don't believe the mother should care for the child in the first place.

source?

Rand largely made up her own definitions for words. Even "selfish", in her work, meant something different from general use.

Selfish is generally defined as:

"1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>"

But Rand tends to ignore a key part of the definition (bolded). Thus, she argues, all actions are selfish because (essentially) we do them because we want to.
I think those defintions are entirely consistent with Rand's position. Rand asserts that you do things solely because you want to. That you want to do them is the primary cause of your actions. What you want (possibly to help people) is irrelevant, because as a motive it's dominated by you doing what you want, regardless of what that is.

I think those defintions are entirely consistent with Rand's position. Rand asserts that you do things solely because you want to. That you want to do them is the primary cause of your actions. What you want (possibly to help people) is irrelevant, because as a motive it's dominated by you doing what you want, regardless of what that is.

;)

Atlas Shrugged? Is that like Telemachus Sneezed?

how about a lifetime of guilty feelings?Well, I guess that's why objectivists approve of capitalism. I mean the bosses must feel really guilty for stealing the workers' labor and that's payment enough, by Rand!:p

Apollo Farted

Ah...I don't think you fully understand objectivism, there. Does Objectivism mean to be a selfish son of a bitch? Because that's what I'm getting from reading about it.

It's actually the most compelling argument I have ever heard on why one should have children.

If you don't like the balance of opinion in society, you can shift it toward yours by having kids and teaching them your point of view.

Assuming, of course, that your children actually adopt your point of view. You can't really teach a point of view - you can only teach about a point of view, and hope that those you teach agree with it. You could, of course, indoctrinate children with a given point of view, but I would think that sort of control over another would be a problem in Objectivist philosophy.

I think those defintions are entirely consistent with Rand's position. Rand asserts that you do things solely because you want to. That you want to do them is the primary cause of your actions. What you want (possibly to help people) is irrelevant, because as a motive it's dominated by you doing what you want, regardless of what that is.

Doing things because you want to does not necessarily mean that you do them with disregard for or without regard for others. You have to remove that part of the definition to end with the statement that all action is selfish.

Doing things because you want to does not necessarily mean that you do them with disregard for or without regard for others. You have to remove that part of the definition to end with the statement that all action is selfish.
didn't we already discuss this?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506373

didn't we already discuss this?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=506373

Indeed. =)

These things do always seem to come back around, don't they? Of course, the new info that he considers himself an Objectivist makes the old conversation make more sense - of course he would assume a selfish motive behind your candy gift rather than a simple wish to be nice to him.

There is a difference between bashing Objectivism and trying to better comprehend it and its adherents. I don't think Gift-of-God can be blamed for the former (yet). Personally, some of the finer points of Objectivism are fuzzy to me as well (e.g. virtues), and I could do with some clarification on them.

So its like horoscopes (you see what you want to see and the person who initially made the blanket statement get the credit)?

So its like horoscopes (you see what you want to see and the person who initially made the blanket statement get the credit)?
How so?

Indeed. =)

These things do always seem to come back around, don't they? Of course, the new info that he considers himself an Objectivist makes the old conversation make more sense - of course he would assume a selfish motive behind your candy gift rather than a simple wish to be nice to him.

either that or he wanted to see if he could piss me off, that seems to be his hobby.......seeing what it takes to piss me off and then laughing at my blowup.

little does he know I am on to him and have been ignoring his prodding for days, which means he is about to get pissed and I get to laugh.

we aren't unhealthy at all, I promise ;)

How so?

The seeming fuzziness of the statements which would allow someone to try to adapt to counter someones view whislt saying that you never changed your opinions.

either that or he wanted to see if he could piss me off, that seems to be his hobby.......seeing what it takes to piss me off and then laughing at my blowup.

little does he know I am on to him and have been ignoring his prodding for days, which means he is about to get pissed and I get to laugh.

we aren't unhealthy at all, I promise ;)

LOL, he sounds a lot like my husband (in the trying to piss you off thing, not the objectivist thing). My husband loves to push people's buttons - including mine. I usually see through it and just let it go, but I do occasionally have outbursts over dumb little things that have built up (which generally end with me in tears and him apologizing for being an ass).

LOL, he sounds a lot like my husband (in the trying to piss you off thing, not the objectivist thing). My husband loves to push people's buttons - including mine. I usually see through it and just let it go, but I do occasionally have outbursts over dumb little things that have built up (which generally end with me in tears and him apologizing for being an ass).

I am not much of a crier......but I once did almost break down into tears, just to see that look on his face, that, "OMG, I took this way too far" look, it's hilarious.

He does apologize daily for being an ass, sometimes he just gets up in the morning and says "I am probably going to be an ass today, but just remember you love me okay?" and I say "I do?"

it's my own way to push his buttons. :D

Does Objectivism mean to be a selfish son of a bitch? Because that's what I'm getting from reading about it.

If you mean selfish as in won't give the hobo (and of course it isn't his fault he's a hobo, he's just mis-understood) money just because he's a hobo, then yeah; you hit it right on the head.

As for this weird 'Parents should ask for re0imbursment later in life if Objectivism was widely accepted' is all hog-wash. The kids obviously provide a good service to your parents grand-children, some of your family they aren't able to take care quite as well as you can.

source?

That was just what I heard when I first learned about Objectivism; looking at the official statement at the Objectivist Center, I think I may have been wrong. However, in that same statement, I found this, which is far more relevant to the topic at hand:

This investment however, does not give parents a lifelong claim on their children. When they become adults, children may or may not appreciate their parents, depending on the type of relationship they have had. They should recognize that their parents are the source of their lives, but also realize that this does not constitute an obligation to automatically love their parents. There is also no reciprocal obligation for children to look after their parents when the parents are old. Such a demand or expectation is irrational, since this arrangement obviously cannot be settled on before the child is born.

Obligations on the part of the children arise if they continue to have an emotional and financial relationship with their parents once they are adults. Parents often attempt to provide long-term support and guidance, even when there is no longer need for it, because of the value they gain from seeing their children succeed in life. Similarly, children often choose to care for their parents during old age because of the values their parents have given them, over and above the obligatory minimum. Such actions exemplify the trader principle of offering value for value.

Apparently that's the official Objectivist statement on the issue.

That was just what I heard when I first learned about Objectivism; looking at the official statement at the Objectivist Center, I think I may have been wrong. However, in that same statement, I found this, which is far more relevant to the topic at hand:



Apparently that's the official Objectivist statement on the issue.

I actually agree with that statement 100%

I actually agree with that statement 100%
As do I.

I actually agree with that statement 100%

There were a few parts I disagreed with, but they're mainly rooted in my distaste for objectivism in general. However, I do find this part to built on shaky premises, even on Objectivist grounds:

Obligations on the part of the children arise if they continue to have an emotional and financial relationship with their parents once they are adults. Parents often attempt to provide long-term support and guidance, even when there is no longer need for it, because of the value they gain from seeing their children succeed in life.

Objectivism dismisses things that are irrational or spiritual because they "do not represent the world as it is" (not exact quote but it's close). But this seems to suggest that things like emotion and spiritual relationships are valid and can be traded like tangible goods. If the Objectivist school admits that intangible or irrational things like love do exist and have value, then that in turn could bring their whole philosophy into question.

Assuming, of course, that your children actually adopt your point of view. You can't really teach a point of view - you can only teach about a point of view, and hope that those you teach agree with it. You could, of course, indoctrinate children with a given point of view, but I would think that sort of control over another would be a problem in Objectivist philosophy.


I think small childerens minds are far more malleable than most are willing to accept, as horrible as the notion may be.

Objectivism dismisses things that are irrational or spiritual because they "do not represent the world as it is" (not exact quote but it's close). But this seems to suggest that things like emotion and spiritual relationships are valid and can be traded like tangible items. If the Objectivist school admits that intangible or irrational things like love do exist and have value, then that in turn could bring their whole philosophy into question.

love is not irrational, or it shouldn't be.

I went back to the site and read the entire statement and still agree with it (which may or may not make me an objectivist, my husband fwiw would say I am not due to my minarchist tradition... but that's a whole other story)

Many people are indoctrinated with the belief that we must automatically love family members simply because they are family. This is the view expressed in bromides like "They're still family" or "Blood is thicker than water." This view is not compatible with the trader principle, since we may not gain any values from certain family members, and hence may not love—or even like—them.

There is a distinction between the family that we are born into and have no choice about—parents, siblings, relatives—and the family we can choose for ourselves—a spouse. Since the former relationships are unchosen, it would be a rare coincidence if we could truly love each member of our family for who they are. The likelihood of being born surrounded entirely by people with whom we share core values is not very high. Affection for our family members would be a genuine reflection of shared values only if we could imagine feeling this affection even if they weren't family.

The only familial relationship in which love is the norm, is one in which we have complete choice in determining who comprises our family: the person we marry. Since we can choose our partners on the basis of mutual love, this is the only relationship where it is natural and not a coincidence that the relationship is a positive one. Because the choice of spouse reveals the values a person considers important, it is usually an accurate reflection of his personality.

the whole quote should clear it up, but the bolded part is what really caught me.

love is not irrational, or it shouldn't be.

It can't be measured. It has no material existence whatsoever. It's a spiritual relationship. So in that sense it is very irrational.

maybe the question should be "why dont objecitivist mothers present their children with a bill?"

by the time a person can truly claim to be an objectivist he is no longer dependent upon his parents for support and has already racked up a bill with them too large to ever be able to pay.

so, i assume, he vows to pay his own way from that day on, to never mooch off his parents again, and to pay them back "in kind" to the best of his ability.

Why don't Objectivist mothers present their kids with a bill? My guess is that the mothers are rational enough to understand that they can never be paid back, so it would be fruitless to pursue such a payment.

You make a good point by bringing up the subject of maturity. Without such, maturity, it would be impossible to really be a rational person, and therefore, a practicing Objectivist. So if a twelve year old does not have the analytical skills to be an Objectivist, there would be no moral obligation (I'm using moral in what I believe is the Objectivist sense, here) for the child to pay.

As to your last paragraph, do Objectivists try to pay back their parents to the best of their ability? I think that's the question I was really asking with the OP. Hopefully, we will find an answer.

the whole quote should clear it up, but the bolded part is what really caught me.
Oddly enough, the quote that you posted pretty much fits with what my own (biological) parents taught me growing up.

I wasn't expected to love my blood relatives simply because they were blood relatives. I hardly knew most of them (we lived pretty far from most of them, and rarely had contact). On the other hand, my closest aunt and uncle are not related to me by blood in any way. I have no problem admitting that I love them more than most of my blood relatives.

My parents also taught me that family members don't get to be lazy and just count on "unconditional love" from each other. My parents taught me that if you want somebody to be part of your family then you have to treat them accordingly.

I would love my parents EXACTLY THE SAME if I found out I was adopted. I would love my brother EXACTLY THE SAME if I found out he'd been swapped at the hospital and wasn't my biological brother. Our blood relation, honestly, means fuckall to me. I love these people because of how they have acted like my family.

I've never understood the people who insist that you should love people because they are related to you by blood. Why? Sometimes such people are not worthy of your love. Sometimes they're assholes. Why should you choose to give your love and affection to assholes?

there is inherent risk in any investment, so what's your point?If you make an investment in stocks, and the value of the stocks plummet, you might choose to terminate the investment and sell the stocks.
If the investment in children isn't deemed to be worthy after a period of time, should you be allowed to terminate the child?

I know quite a few objectivists, and the one who has children has done so explicitly because she wants to shift the balance of opinion in society (one objectivist child can significantly skew a classroom).Ten bucks says the kid's a commie in 15 years. :)

I think those defintions are entirely consistent with Rand's position. Rand asserts that you do things solely because you want to. That you want to do them is the primary cause of your actions. What you want (possibly to help people) is irrelevant, because as a motive it's dominated by you doing what you want, regardless of what that is.This would mean that all action is selfish.

So all ...Objectivism cannot deal effectively with child-rearing (and similar examples of natural, fairly unambiguous altruism) without rendering meaningless most, if not all, of its normative claims - because if you reduce child-rearing to a simple matter of "I value my children", then you can reduce all duty towards others as a matter of "I value those others."...

I'm getting that impression, too. Many of the Objectivist articles I have read seem to stretch the definition of value to such an extent that it no longer menas the same thing as it does when discussing simpler models of human transactions, like economy and finance.

A rational agent would never do that. Action would only ever follow reason.

While I do not know your friend, and so cannot presume to tell you what her motives were, I would keep in mind that everyone is irrational at least once in their lives, and the urge to procreate is the single most primal instinct we have. It would be logical to assume that your friend gave into this urge and is now attempting to rationalise such behaviour within an Objectivist framework. Being a rational agent seems to be more of an ideal to strive for than something that is easily practiced.

I think those defintions are entirely consistent with Rand's position. Rand asserts that you do things solely because you want to. That you want to do them is the primary cause of your actions. What you want (possibly to help people) is irrelevant, because as a motive it's dominated by you doing what you want, regardless of what that is.

But when I get up in the middle of the night to take care of my kids because they're sick, I don't want to do it. When they start crying because they threw up and want a hug, I don't want to hug them because the are covered in vomit. But I do it anyways, because that is the obligation of being a parent. It is this obligation, of doing things you don't want to do, that is irreconcilable with Objectivism, in my mind.

Atlas Shrugged? Is that like Telemachus Sneezed?

This made me laugh. Yes, it is like that. Even the weird rape scenes.

As for this weird 'Parents should ask for re0imbursment later in life if Objectivism was widely accepted' is all hog-wash. The kids obviously provide a good service to your parents grand-children, some of your family they aren't able to take care quite as well as you can.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that the children repay the parents by taking care of their children, i.e. the grandchildren, and that this benefits the parents by reducing the load the parents must bear? This does not make sense if you assume that everyone should operate from a selfish standpoint. The parents have no obligation to care for their grandchildren.

Apparently that's the official Objectivist statement on the issue.

Thank you. And the link for those who wish to read the article in its entirety:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-32-541-FAQ_Objectivism_Family.aspx

love is not irrational, or it shouldn't be...the whole quote should clear it up, but the bolded part is what really caught me.

Love is often irrational, even though it shouldn't be. Love is also painful, frustrating, liberating, confusing, and often undefinable, though it shouldn't be. (insert appropriate smiley here)

Getting back to the article, we have the first paragraph here:

Objectivism holds that the fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle. This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them - values of all sorts, including common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more. Trade, in this broad sense, is the only proper basis of any relationship—including relationships with members of our families.

Now, since newborns and young children have no values like common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more, I am wondering how the trader principle can be implemented in this situation. The next few paragraphs seem to support this interpretation. Until we get to here:

One clearly identifiable obligation is that of parents towards young children, who need to be looked after until they develop the ability to think rationally and independently. In having children of their own free will, parents take on this moral responsibility. Their reasons for having children may range from rational motivations such as the enjoyment of watching a new life develop, to irrational ones such as carrying on their family name. But whatever their reasons, in order to be good parents, it is necessary for them to invest emotionally and financially when their children are young and incapable of taking care of themselves.

Where does this obligation come from? I assume that it comes out of the idea that the Objectivist has made a rational decision to have children, knowing of this obligation, and has decided to fulfill this obligation when making the decision to have children.

I think this answers the question as to why Objectivists don't bill their kids. The parent enters into the relationship knowing they will be obligated to spend countless hours and resources on this child, with no expectation of any return on their investment except for some vaguley defined enjoyment of seeing another human person become self-actualised. To me, this is pretty much a definition of an unselfish act. And I do not see how it is rational at all. In other words, the answer is that Objectivists don't bill their kids becuase they are also irrational beings who act in an unselfish manner.

The final paragraph seems to support this interpretation:

Thus the only rational basis for family relationships lies in shared values. Positive relations with family members are not obligatory or necessary for one's happiness, but they can often be enjoyable, and sometimes be the source of unique and long-lasting friendships.

Since it is impossible for young children to independently share values with their parents, there can be no rational basis for the parent child relationship.

Still, we don't know if people who become Objectivists pay their parents for the time and money invested. And if they do not, why not?

But when I get up in the middle of the night to take care of my kids because they're sick, I don't want to do it. When they start crying because they threw up and want a hug, I don't want to hug them because the are covered in vomit. But I do it anyways, because that is the obligation of being a parent. It is this obligation, of doing things you don't want to do, that is irreconcilable with Objectivism, in my mind.
I am 100% sure that there are days my husband does not want to wake up at the crack of stupid and go to work to talk to idiots all day, but he does anyway, because he values the money that comes into the house to provide for his family which brings him joy. Objectivism (as he explains it to me) is making a rational choice to do things. He doesn't go to work because he feels he has to, he chooses to, even when he doesn't want to. (btw you seem really grossed out and resentful about your kids.....but then again, you may just be trying to prove your point, I have OCD and I wouldn't turn my vomit covered kid away if she needed a hug......although I def. would wash off after)



Where does this obligation come from? I assume that it comes out of the idea that the Objectivist has made a rational decision to have children, knowing of this obligation, and has decided to fulfill this obligation when making the decision to have children.
sounds somewhat right.



Since it is impossible for young children to independently share values with their parents, there can be no rational basis for the parent child relationship.
long term investment?

Still, we don't know if people who become Objectivists pay their parents for the time and money invested. And if they do not, why not?
they aren't obligated to.

I am 100% sure that there are days my husband does not want to wake up at the crack of stupid and go to work to talk to idiots all day, but he does anyway, because he values the money that comes into the house to provide for his family which brings him joy. Objectivism (as he explains it to me) is making a rational choice to do things. He doesn't go to work because he feels he has to, he chooses to, even when he doesn't want to. (btw you seem really grossed out and resentful about your kids.....but then again, you may just be trying to prove your point, I have OCD and I wouldn't turn my vomit covered kid away if she needed a hug......although I def. would wash off after)

(Yeah, I'm just trying to prove the point that parenting involves a lot of things that no one would rationally want to do. It would be more correct to say that part of me does not want to get vomit all over me, but another part of me wants to comfort them. And I will admit that sometimes I do feel resentful towards my children. Thankfully, not often, and usualy when I feel ill and exhausted. I assume most parents feel this way sometimes.)

But work and parenting are not analogous, as I can quit my job, but I cannot quit my family. There is an obligation in parenting that simply does not exist in the workplace. I could be a total asshole to my coworkers and still do my job properly, but I cannot properly raise my children and still be an asshole to them.

sounds somewhat right.

I'm just trying to understand, and your comments in this thread have helped a lot in that respect.

long term investment?

I don't think it's that simple. If we assume that this long term investment is the rational basis for such a relationship, we then have to define a rational investment as one that carries no chance of any concrete return, as the children are not obligated to make any return on the parent's investment:

This investment however, does not give parents a lifelong claim on their children. When they become adults, children may or may not appreciate their parents, depending on the type of relationship they have had. They should recognize that their parents are the source of their lives, but also realize that this does not constitute an obligation to automatically love their parents. There is also no reciprocal obligation for children to look after their parents when the parents are old. Such a demand or expectation is irrational, since this arrangement obviously cannot be settled on before the child is born.

Such a definition of a rational investment would be contradictory, wouldn't it?

they aren't obligated to.

I am not sure about that. Children are not obligated to pay back their Objectivist parents, but Objectivist kids should pay back their parents, unless they want to admit that they are alive and healthy only because they recieived something they have not paid for. Such an admission would be anathema to Objectivist philosophy, wouldn't it?

I'm just trying to understand, and your comments in this thread have helped a lot in that respect.

thanks ;) remember though I am not the objectivist in the house, in fact while I agree with most of it.......some of it's just loopy to me.

I do wonder what in your life you are so dogmatic about? I mean objectivism isn't a religion, I wonder why some of you expect an objectivist to be so fundamentalist about it all.

That's something that's been bothering me since yesterday.

thanks ;) remember though I am not the objectivist in the house, in fact while I agree with most of it.......some of it's just loopy to me.

I do wonder what in your life you are so dogmatic about? I mean objectivism isn't a religion, I wonder why some of you expect an objectivist to be so fundamentalist about it all.

That's something that's been bothering me since yesterday.

To be honest, it bothered me too, as I am not dogmatic in my own life, so I should not expect others to be as well.

I started thinking that there are probably several types of Objectivists (insert Captain Obvious joke here). There are those who are dogmatic about it, and these probabaly don't have kids. And there are also people like your husband, who try to implement Objectivism into their real life as much as possible while recognising that no philosophy or ideology is perfect.

Having said that, it still seems like there's an irreconcilable chasm between Objectivism and child raising, and that Objectivists would have to reliquish the 'trader model' dogma in order to raise children.

Why don't Objectivist mothers present their kids with a bill? My guess is that the mothers are rational enough to understand that they can never be paid back, so it would be fruitless to pursue such a payment.

You make a good point by bringing up the subject of maturity. Without such, maturity, it would be impossible to really be a rational person, and therefore, a practicing Objectivist. So if a twelve year old does not have the analytical skills to be an Objectivist, there would be no moral obligation (I'm using moral in what I believe is the Objectivist sense, here) for the child to pay.

As to your last paragraph, do Objectivists try to pay back their parents to the best of their ability? I think that's the question I was really asking with the OP. Hopefully, we will find an answer.

according to the quotes brought out by others, i guess they dont. which seems to me to be self justification (depending on how much their parents sacrificed to give them a good life). sure you didnt ask to be born but you WERE born and received the benefit of that. if you were raised in a loving supportive household then you DO owe your parents something in kind. saying you dont is just a way of getting out of paying your own way. if being responsible for your own life and paying your own way is part of objectivism (like i know anything about objectivism) then you are being a hypocrit to walk away from loving supportive parents so that you can better build the life you want.

as to the objectivist mothers, i guess we need to find one and ask her how she handled it. maybe an objectivist mother doesnt make unnecessary sacrifices for her children... no private school, no paying for college, no expensive athletic shoes, the kid makes his own money as soon as possible and pays for his own game consoles and computers. hmmm writing that makes it seems like a very legitimate attitude to take toward child rearing.

as to the objectivist mothers, i guess we need to find one and ask her how she handled it. maybe an objectivist mother doesnt make unnecessary sacrifices for her children... no private school, no paying for college, no expensive athletic shoes, the kid makes his own money as soon as possible and pays for his own game consoles and computers. hmmm writing that makes it seems like a very legitimate attitude to take toward child rearing.
again, not an objectivist (but I live with one...) my kids are guaranteed food, shelter, clothes, medical care, and basic education, if they want more they have to earn it. (and they do)

I have been told it's cruel to expect a child to earn cartoon time, but I say it's my T.V. and that cartoons are entertainment, and since I have to earn my entertainment so do they.

thanks ;) remember though I am not the objectivist in the house, in fact while I agree with most of it.......some of it's just loopy to me.

I do wonder what in your life you are so dogmatic about? I mean objectivism isn't a religion, I wonder why some of you expect an objectivist to be so fundamentalist about it all.

That's something that's been bothering me since yesterday.

i think it comes off that way--as a fanatical philosophy that people follow to the letter--because rand attracted fanatical followers in real life. its not just a philosophy but a movement. the stories of rand's private life and the infighting in the movement is the stuff of soap operas.

so one gets the impression that its an all or nothing kind of thing rather than an interesting set of ideas that one picks and chooses from as they fit one's life.

again, not an objectivist (but I live with one...) my kids are guaranteed food, shelter, clothes, medical care, and basic education, if they want more they have to earn it. (and they do)

I have been told it's cruel to expect a child to earn cartoon time, but I say it's my T.V. and that cartoons are entertainment, and since I have to earn my entertainment so do they.

like i said, i dont know if thats the way an objectivist mother would handle things or not but its certainly a way to have your children turn out self sufficient and to not end up as their slave. unappreciated, unnecessary self sacrifice sucks.

This has always been a criticism of Objectivism for me: the idea that everyone pays for everything. If that were true, it would dictate that children should pay for their upbringing.
...
But who would really charge their kids that much money? No one. And this is why Objectivism is one of the most, if not the most, unrealistic philosophies ever spawned by the human frontal lobe.

Also, the argument is totally stupid.

I wasn't given the choice to live or die when I was still an embryo or a foetus: someone else chose in my stead (my parents). They chose. They should pay for their choice. What if I wanted to die and they forced me to live the pains of labor, birth and living amongst the hairless great apes?
;)

Ok, enough bs.

BTW, I will repay them back by caring for them when they will be old.

like i said, i dont know if thats the way an objectivist mother would handle things or not but its certainly a way to have your children turn out self sufficient and to not end up as their slave. unappreciated, unnecessary self sacrifice sucks.

my children are already more self-sufficient than most of the kids I know in college. In fact, I still do nice things for them, because I want to, and they know that I do them because I want to, and it makes them feel loved because they know I absolutely would not do those things unless I felt like it was something I was drawn to do.

Also, the argument is totally stupid.

I wasn't given the choice to live or die when I was still an embryo or a foetus: someone else chose in my stead (my parents). They chose. They should pay for their choice. What if I wanted to die and they forced me to live the pains of labor, birth and living amongst the hairless great apes?
;)

Ok, enough bs.

BTW, I will repay them back by caring for them when they will be old.

are you an objectivist? the paragraph posted by Sominium Effectus suggests that its not necessary.

If you make an investment in stocks, and the value of the stocks plummet, you might choose to terminate the investment and sell the stocks.
If the investment in children isn't deemed to be worthy after a period of time, should you be allowed to terminate the child?
If you mean killing it, no. That would be murder. Giving it up for adoption, sure.


But work and parenting are not analogous, as I can quit my job, but I cannot quit my family. There is an obligation in parenting that simply does not exist in the workplace. I could be a total asshole to my coworkers and still do my job properly, but I cannot properly raise my children and still be an asshole to them.
Correct. Any rational objectivist would fully account for this before making the decision. Rand would chastise anyone who entered a contract and then backed out of it on a whim. Likewise, she would chastise an objectivist who had not considered the implications of child-rearing, only to back out of it.

Correct. Any rational objectivist would fully account for this before making the decision. Rand would chastise anyone who entered a contract and then backed out of it on a whim. Likewise, she would chastise an objectivist who had not considered the implications of child-rearing, only to back out of it.

While I agree with you from a purely logical and theoretical standpoint, the theory breaks down in the face of reality. I do not think it is possible for people without children to fully understand the obligations involved.

While I agree with you from a purely logical and theoretical standpoint, the theory breaks down in the face of reality. I do not think it is possible for people without children to fully understand the obligations involved.
I have never had children yet I do have a good idea of what it might involve. Just asking a parent is one way of finding out. Do I fully understand what it will involve? Probably not, I'd need to be a parent for that. But then humans never act on the basis of perfect information. Objectivism has never maintained that they do. A rational agent is one that takes calculated risks.

are you an objectivist? the paragraph posted by Sominium Effectus suggests that its not necessary.

No.
I just posted to answer to the OP quickly, and couldn't read the whole thread; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I have never had children yet I do have a good idea of what it might involve. Just asking a parent is one way of finding out. Do I fully understand what it will involve? Probably not, I'd need to be a parent for that. But then humans never act on the basis of perfect information. Objectivism has never maintained that they do. A rational agent is one that takes calculated risks.

I don't think you understand the gulf between imagining waht being a parent is like and actually experiencing it.

I am tired all the time. All the time.

I have not stepped foot inside a movie theater in years.

How many times do I have to make dinner?

I know what the bathroom looks like in my local video store.

Yes, I am buying band-aids again. No, no one in my home gets hurt often enough to need this many.

Did you understand what all this has to do with parenting? The first two are obvious, or can be gleaned from a short conversation with any parent. If you can explain the last three, I will be impressed. Not to mention that Objectivists are rational people, while the parenting situation is inherently irrational. Consequently, it may be even more difficult for them to imagine the extent of change that children bring into your life.

Did you understand what all this has to do with parenting? The first two are obvious, or can be gleaned from a short conversation with any parent. If you can explain the last three, I will be impressed. Not to mention that Objectivists are rational people, while the parenting situation is inherently irrational. Consequently, it may be even more difficult for them to imagine the extent of change that children bring into your life.
I wasn't conceived out of a void. My mother has voiced complaints similar to these several times. I am aware of the amount of sacrifice she puts in, and that would be required of any parent. Personally, I do not consider myself able to engage in such a commitment. Not because of the inherent irrationality of children, but rather because I do not think I would live up to such a level of obligation. There is no reason though that an Objectivist might not consider themselves up to it. The thing is this is a risk unlike others in that simply disengaging oneself from parenthood is by no means easy (i.e. the sunk costs and barriers to exit are immensely high).

Would you consider yourself irrational for having chosen to have children? Or merely someone who is rational (on the whole), that has undertaken a risk and that is adapting to new circumstances and evolving accordingly?

No.
I just posted to answer to the OP quickly, and couldn't read the whole thread; mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

for your penance you will read 2 chapters of atlas shrugged...

I don't think you understand the gulf between imagining waht being a parent is like and actually experiencing it.

I am tired all the time. All the time.

I have not stepped foot inside a movie theater in years.

How many times do I have to make dinner?

I know what the bathroom looks like in my local video store.

Yes, I am buying band-aids again. No, no one in my home gets hurt often enough to need this many.

Did you understand what all this has to do with parenting? The first two are obvious, or can be gleaned from a short conversation with any parent. If you can explain the last three, I will be impressed. Not to mention that Objectivists are rational people, while the parenting situation is inherently irrational. Consequently, it may be even more difficult for them to imagine the extent of change that children bring into your life.
how old are your children?

It can't be measured. It has no material existence whatsoever. It's a spiritual relationship. So in that sense it is very irrational.
That's not what irrational means at all.

I still don't know how anyone can believe in objectivism without being religious.#

edit: moral objectivism that is

It seems like many of the objectivists are neo-objectivists and not the original objectivists.

I wasn't conceived out of a void. My mother has voiced complaints similar to these several times. I am aware of the amount of sacrifice she puts in, and that would be required of any parent. Personally, I do not consider myself able to engage in such a commitment. Not because of the inherent irrationality of children, but rather because I do not think I would live up to such a level of obligation. There is no reason though that an Objectivist might not consider themselves up to it. The thing is this is a risk unlike others in that simply disengaging oneself from parenthood is by no means easy (i.e. the sunk costs and barriers to exit are immensely high).

Would you consider yourself irrational for having chosen to have children? Or merely someone who is rational (on the whole), that has undertaken a risk and that is adapting to new circumstances and evolving accordingly?

I guess you're right. An Objectivist could make the decision to become a parent despite being unable to fully comprehend the investment involved, because they comprehend to their best of their ability, which is realistic. It is my opinion, however, that they are fooling themselves if the believe that they can imagine anything approaching the totality of the investment involved. However, that is my opinion only, and should be regarded as such.

Yes, I would consider myself to be irrational because I have children. I also consider myself irrational because I like dancing, beer, singing in the shower, winter cycling, flirting with the elderly, online debating, and other illogical behaviours. Some of these may have rational benefits, but that is not why I do them. I do them for the irrational aspect, because I am sometimes ruled by the Imp of the Perverse. But I see nothing wrong with being irrational sometimes.

how old are your children?

My younger daughter will be three in July, and my older daughter turned five last March.

My younger daughter will be three in July, and my older daughter turned five last March.

I have one turning 4 this month, and one turning 6 in July (both girls) I get what you mean about being tired all the time........but you seem to be sacrificing more than is needed, I mean why can't you go to the movies?

I guess you're right. An Objectivist could make the decision to become a parent despite being unable to fully comprehend the investment involved, because they comprehend to their best of their ability, which is realistic. It is my opinion, however, that they are fooling themselves if the believe that they can imagine anything approaching the totality of the investment involved. However, that is my opinion only, and should be regarded as such.

Yes, I would consider myself to be irrational because I have children. I also consider myself irrational because I like dancing, beer, singing in the shower, winter cycling, flirting with the elderly, online debating, and other illogical behaviours. Some of these may have rational benefits, but that is not why I do them. I do them for the irrational aspect, because I am sometimes ruled by the Imp of the Perverse. But I see nothing wrong with being irrational sometimes.
Something to keep in mind is that when humans are referred to as rational it is not under the expectation that they are perfectly logical. It is under the assumption that they have the capacity to act rationally, for the most part. Certain things simply cannot be subjected to rational justification. Rand's contention was that for man qua man (and not as animal) to survive he must employ his reason as much as possible. This is why rationality features in Objectivism to the extent that it does. I think most people misconstrue it as some sort of appeal to become wholly rational. To illustrate, it is like the difference between why I prefer Coke over Pepsi (which cannot be rationalised, except by saying the former yields greater utility to me) and the difference between smashing a can on a rock to open it, and doing so in the proper way. Rand's emphasis was on the latter.

I hope this helps clear things up. My reading on Objectivism is admittedly shallow.

I have one turning 4 this month, and one turning 6 in July (both girls) I get what you mean about being tired all the time........but you seem to be sacrificing more than is needed, I mean why can't you go to the movies?

My home life is not something I feel comfortable discussing here.

But one of the factors is that neither I nor the other parent have much of an extended family around, and we are not financially stable enough to hire a babysitter except on a routine basis. So it's just us, really. Add in the jobs and trying to keep an old rundown apartment clean enough for the children...well, it adds up to not much free time for yours truly.

That's about all I can say about the subject without treading onto dangerous ground.

My home life is not something I feel comfortable discussing here.

But one of the factors is that neither I nor the other parent have much of an extended family around, and we are not financially stable enough to hire a babysitter except on a routine basis. So it's just us, really. Add in the jobs and trying to keep an old rundown apartment clean enough for the children...well, it adds up to not much free time for yours truly.

That's about all I can say about the subject without treading onto dangerous ground.

that sucks. I hope as the children get older things get easier. We have zero extended family that I am willing to leave the kids with, so I end up carting them around with me anyway. :p

Something to keep in mind is that when humans are referred to as rational it is not under the expectation that they are perfectly logical. It is under the assumption that they have the capacity to act rationally, for the most part. Certain things simply cannot be subjected to rational justification. Rand's contention was that for man qua man (and not as animal) to survive he must employ his reason as much as possible. This is why rationality features in Objectivism to the extent that it does. I think most people misconstrue it as some sort of appeal to become wholly rational.

That clarifies things a bit. But I thought the Objectivist ideal was to become wholly rational. Am I wrong?

By the way, what does qua mean? From the context, I guess it means as, but I assume you meant something more specific, or you would have just used as. Perhaps defined specifically as?

That clarifies things a bit. But I thought the Objectivist ideal was to become wholly rational. Am I wrong?
As much as is humanly possible, would be my guess. There is a limit.

By the way, what does qua mean? From the context, I guess it means as, but I assume you meant something more specific, or you would have just used as. Perhaps defined specifically as?
It means 'in the capacity of', but also 'as'. I was paraphrasing directly from Rand in that instance.

I still don't know how anyone can believe in objectivism without being religious.#

edit: moral objectivism that is
The Objectivist belief that the world exists objectively is the biggest part of why I can't agree with them. I don't see why anyone would hold that belief.

I might be willing to argue that if the world exists it exists objectively, but believing the world exists seems like a stretch.

that sucks. I hope as the children get older things get easier. We have zero extended family that I am willing to leave the kids with, so I end up carting them around with me anyway. :p

I have this awesome double stroller that converts into a bicycle trailer (http://www.mec.ca/Products/product_detail.jsp?PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442507979&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302693105&bmUID=1178731531706). My kids spend a lot of time in that thing being carted around. Sometimes it's the only way to get the little one to nap.

The Objectivist belief that the world exists objectively is the biggest part of why I can't agree with them. I don't see why anyone would hold that belief.

I might be willing to argue that if the world exists it exists objectively, but believing the world exists seems like a stretch.

I'm sorry I don't quite follow. An objects existence is neither objective or subjective, it merely exists. What it is may be subjective to the one perceiving it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

But i'm probably just misinterpretating what you are actually saying.

As much as is humanly possible, would be my guess. There is a limit.


It means 'in the capacity of', but also 'as'. I was paraphrasing directly from Rand in that instance.

Thanks again for the clarifications. You and Smunkee have really helped me understand some of the points about Objecticivism that I was confused about.

I'm sorry I don't quite follow. An objects existence is neither objective or subjective, it merely exists. What it is may be subjective to the one perceiving it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

But i'm probably just misinterpretating what you are actually saying.
Objective reality exists independently of the perception of it. Subjective reality is subject to the perception of it.

I suspect Objectivists hold that reality exists objectively to get around moral relativism. They want moral rules to exist objectively (and thus be true for all people regardless of those people's opinions or perceptions of those moral rules).

And I'm willing to concede that if things exist they exist objectively (they simply exist), but actually holding a belief that things do, in fact, exist, seems without rational basis.