The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

Lee,

Let me clue you in, since you came here with presumptions that impugn the rationality of women.

Since intercourse implies some risk of pregnancy, a rational woman must decide, ahead of time, how to deal with that eventuality. She may decide against sex. Or she may decide that if she becomes pregnant she will have an abortion. Or she may contract with a couple who wish to adopt a baby, and get from them compensation and expenses for carrying the pregnancy, if any, to term. Or she may make her consent to intercourse conditional on agreement with the terms of her choice: man pays for abortion; or man pays costs and child support; or even, man agrees to marry her if she is carrying his fetus. And if the man does not agree to whatever terms she chooses to specify, then she denies consent - and then there is no risk of pregnancy. The man, in turn, has whatever obligations he agreed to.

You came here with a scenario built on the assumption that a woman, unlike a man, need not live by reason - and that if she fails to exercise responsibility for the choices she makes, then the male is obliged, willingly or not, to pay for the outcome of her choices. Your scenario insults the rationality of every woman on this forum. Hong was unreasonably indulgent toward you in the face of this insult. If you understand this, you will apologize. Or, if you persist in polluting this forum with sophomoric insults, you will be ignored.

Post 161

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:29pm

Mike,

You're almost making a coherent arguement. Good for you. Your quote is a good start, but you failed to finish by providing a single example of where anything I said contradicted the quote, or that shows that I don't understand what Objectivism says.

I've stated that I don't think think accepting responsibilty for an unplanned is self sacrifice. You're confusing selfishness with 'doing whatever I want.' That's hedonism, not ratiohal egoism.

My intial post ASKED whether this showed a limit of selfishness, but a couple of good posts on the Objectivist Parents board cleared that up for me. I never stated that the father should sacrifice, but that they should change their values to reflect reality. Agree or not, that's a throughly Objectivist arguement - nothing in it contradicts Objectivism.

You misunderstood the ad baculum article because you didn't parse the quote correctly. Let me explain what 'per se' means. It means as such, or in all cases. So - threats aren't ad baculum in all cases; if someone walks into a bank and threatens the teller, it's not ad baculum because there isn't an argument. It's just a threat.

But this is a message board where ideas are debated. It's all arguement. When someone posts what George did, it's clearly ad baculum. Next time, you need to understand the quotes you post. You're improving, though.

Post 162

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 8:38pm

Adam, your entire post is based on an incorrect assumption - that anything I said is remotely anti woman in any way. In fact, I think quite the opposite - I think the majority of the posts here are very anti-woman. Your comments about me insulting Hong are, by extension, incorrect.

You've laid out 'rational' options and conviently left out that should could rationally decide against abortion or adoption and rationally decide to keep the baby.

And why is it that you, a man, are the only one on two message board to see how I've 'insulted' women? Guess it's not that obvious.

Post 163

Monday, March 7, 2005 - 10:15pm

Lee,

You are incoherent.

Post 164

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 12:30am

Adam,

Please excuse my forwardness, but may I make an observation? I believe that you are making poor use of that magnificent brain of yours here. It just doesn't get any better, no matter what you say. It's been that way since this whole thing began. But suit yourself...

Michael

Post 165

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 4:35am

Adam does make a very good point. Again, it comes down to the woman's decision and the man's attitudes and actions may or may not influence her choice, but it is ultimately her choice. The idea that the guy will completely change overnight to a loving involved father is unrealistic in my view. Its not impossible, just highly unlikely. Can you say "a snowball's chance in hell?" The kid was an accident, the man does not want children, he doesn't even love the woman. It was nookie qua nookie.

There is nothing in the whole scenario that makes me believe that he would suddenly want to become a good father given the situation at hand. If the woman, who is obviously fertile but using birth control suddenly wants to have a baby rather than waiting for the right situation, she is the one who needs to check her premises as she is the one who has broken the agreement implied by using birth control. To expect him to suddenly change his views is unrealistic IMO. Its much easier for him to evade the responsibility. If she is having this baby, she has to make the choice fully aware that she will most likely be on her own. Maybe not from the start because there is a slim chance he will be involved, but he obviously is not ready to be a father and to expect that he will raise the child to adulthood is irrational. Its not what is right or wrong, its about reality. Most guys don't like kids, and would run. I'd still like to see how she could possibly persuade him to change his mind and be a good father.

Lee, I realize you are saying he should do. You are trying to illustrate the limits of rational self-interest. Sure it would be quite honorable for him to take full responsibility. I am talking about what he would do. The terms should and would are not interchangable. What do you think he would actually do given the circumstances? Do you really think that being forced into fatherhood would actually make him a happy and loving dad? I don't.

(Edited by katdaddy on 3/08, 6:51am)

Post 166

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 5:36am

nookie qua nookie

LOL. Katdaddy, you made my day.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 167

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 7:25am

Kat-D,

Good post. I'm actually not trying to illustrate the limits of rational self interest - I didn't have a firm conclusion in my mind when I asked it; I was really just trying to start and interesting conversation. A couple of post on the Yahoo group have convinced that there's nothing unselfish about it, and that it's the virtue of justice that's in play here.

Another slight correction - it's not that the woman wanted a child, now, with this person. But she got pregnant, so now she has to deal with that. A lot of people are acting as though abortion or adoption was casual, simple choices - and I find that extremely insulting to women.

This is, in a sense, similar to a question like "What if you hit a parked car in the middle of the night?" What the right thing and what would people do?

Post 168

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 5:35pm

This is, in a sense, similar to a question like "What if you hit a parked car in the middle of the night?" What the right thing and what would people do?

Well, most people would flee the scene, but the right thing to do is take responsibility for your actions and offer to reimburse the parked car's owner. However I don't see it as a similar analogy.

Say you hit a parked car in the middle of the night, own up to it and tell the owner. But say you really smacked that car, totalling it. The owner (who loves his car and doesn't believe in junking cars,) then chooses to fix the car using your money (instead of replace it), costing thousands more than the undamaged value of the car. Then the owner says since he can't get to work without his car, you must pay him equal to his job's income during the time he needs to fix the car, costing you thousands more. Your alternatives can be anything from tellin' the guy to go eat a bag of hell, to quitting your career and your life to learn car mechanics and help fix that car yourself.

You can:
1) Decide to have nothing to do with the car and its fixing (or as little to do with the car as the law allows - pay for parts, nothing else.)

2) Be involved with the car, but in a bitter and pissed off way. Do the bare minimum and resent it, because the car screwed up your plans.

3) Be involved with the car, and really make a commitment to be an excellent mechanic. Don't complain about what is missed, don't whine about what the owner should have done.

Lee Stranahan wrote:
I think that's it broadly- don't be involved, be involved and pissy, or be involved and good. People in this dicussion keep acting like option 3 doesn't exist - I'm saying option 3 is the moral, rational thing to do.

I sometimes find that a change in perspective helps to clear up contradictions. The fallacies of argumentation that I have made are equivocation, non-sequitar, strawman, double-standard and trying to add validity to a long and nonsensical thread.

Post 169

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 8:57pm

Jon,

If you sign a contract with someone then there is a quid pro quo and the limits of your liability are (or at least should be) clearly specified. Your attempt to equate a contract with a one-sided claim by an entity that didn't even exist when when you supposedly created this liability simply doesn't wash. The two situations are not at all comparable.

Furthermore, any claim that results from a contract is at most for damages, never for specific performance. The child certainly cannot claim any damages when what the parents have in fact done is to give him the gift of life. To demand more is simply ungrateful.

What have they done to ME? They are filling my world with underprivileged children, stocking orphanages with kids...That�s a long chain, I admit, but they are initiating force against me, so I have the right to respond with force�sterilization at my expense.

It is not your world. The world does not belong to you. Your attempted argument proves too much. By that logic any negative consequences by anyone would entitle you to seek redress. That way lies tyranny. That way lies the police state. Your claim that some unspecified persons indirectly caused you extra expense is spurious. Unless you can specify exactly how some particular person violated your rights, you haven't a leg to stand on.

Post 170

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:04pm

Life is not a 'gift' - that's religious crap.

Post 171

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:06pm

Rick,

Should you ever become weak, call me. I will pay you not to have children.

Jon

(And it is my world.)

Post 172

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 5:27am

Pasotto:

The child certainly cannot claim any damages when what the parents have in fact done is to give him the gift of life. To demand more is simply ungrateful.

Yeah, what an ingrate! The lousy little parasitical infant should be ashamed of himself as he sits there freezing to death on his parents' back porch -- the porch they were kind enough to provide him out of the goodness of their hearts, as a launch pad for his undeserving life. If there were justice in the universe, they shoulda just told the insufferable little moocher to take a hike...

Folks, don't know about you, but I've had enough of this asshole, and as far as I'm concerned he can go blather and shadowbox all by himself.

Incidentally, since I know that this is a high-falutin' philosophical forum, I assure you that I use the term "asshole" strictly in its highest, most philosophical sense.

Post 173

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 6:34am

Jon said:

What have they done to ME? They are filling my world with underprivileged children, stocking orphanages with kids, some of whom will thrive and be good people, but many of whom will bounce from foster home to foster home and some of whom will be breaking into my van to steal speakers. That�s a long chain, I admit, but they are initiating force against me, so I have the right to respond with force�sterilization at my expense.

Jon, that's probably the stupidest argument I've seen on SOLOHQ in a long time. I don't believe that you actually believe that. Do you? Is there anyone on this list that thinks that Jon has made a valid argument here?

Post 174

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 7:41am

Glenn,

Of course I do not actually believe it. The sterilizations should be at your and Rick Pasotto�s expense.

Jon

Post 175

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:10am

Is there anyone on this list that thinks that Jon has made a valid argument here?

A valid argument here in this thread, or at Solo in general? :P

Well it'd be "no" to each anyway...

Post 176

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 8:18am

Ha ha. Good one, Jon. I didn't see that one coming. You really got me there. (As I pointed out in another post, it's really hard to be sarcastic in print.)

I've read your posts in the past, and based on them I don't believe you really think that the argument you gave is sound. I think it just came out in a moment of frustration. But, hey, that would be psychologizing, and I don't want to be accused of that. So, what do you say, Jon: if you were king for a day and were able to implement your idea, would you?

Glenn

Post 177

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 9:19am

Glenn,

Your interest in what I would do, as King is flattering. Let�s use a concrete context. Go read George�s Brian article. Let�s say Brian�s mother has more children after Brian, then more, all of them living through the same hell. As King for the day, I would at least lock up the parents and all abusers involved. I would deliver the kids to a safe family that volunteered itself.

Let us recall that my sterilization comment came in response to Rick Pasotto�s statement, �A 5-day old has no more right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered than a 5-year old or a 50-year old.�

So, if I was King for a day and I caught Brian�s mother saying the above, then yes I certainly would sterilize her.

Admittedly, I have been repeating the sterilization line in a lesser context: A woman merely filling orphanages, not keeping and abusing her children. In her case, I would say she is irresponsible, immoral. I would offer her sterilization at Rick�s expense. If she refused, I would offer a more expensive, reversible procedure at your expense. If she refused that, I honestly don�t know what I would do with her, but it would have to stop.

If your neighbor is constantly breeding dogs, first dozens, then hundreds of dogs, and releasing them on the neighborhood�then he is directly responsible for setting into motion a nuisance that will affect you and others. Your right to make him stop is clear to me.

Jon

Post 178

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 9:45am

Robert,

I want to complement your thought on Rick Pasotto's post. The phrase that preceded that amazing pronouncement on babies making claims (in the court of law sense) is this:

"Furthermore, any claim that results from a contract is at most for damages, never for specific performance."

That's one hell of a legal premise. I have translated a ton of court sentences and settlements for civil works that do include specific performance - such as determining the partial completion of a work, just as one easy example, or the execution of a performance bond (which in no way can be considered as damages - it is legally considered as contract performance).

But hey. What the hell. Maybe there is a whole educational need here that has not yet been provided for: that of giving crash courses in case law to the newborn.

Also, that sterilization thing by Jon - Jon, you be careful. If you want to barge in on limiting other people's reproductive capacity, under the premise of equal rights for all it would not be unreasonable for one of them to posit the start of a sterilization program with you.

Michael

Post 179

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - 9:53am