RoR: Forum

I think it is standard Objectivist thought that parents owe certain treatment to their children. (They must try to take care of them as they see fit, not be negligent, etc...). I have been asking myself lately, however, whether the standard which demands such treatment is something other than the parent's own life. I know that parents often get something out of raising their children, and even believe that many parents would not regard what they normally do for their kids as sacrifices (at least because of how much they value their kids.) However, I don't see how people owe their children certain treatment simply out of concern for their own survival.
Does anyone have any ideas about how to reconcile the idea that parents owe their children certain treatment with the fundamentals of the Objectivist ethics? Or am I right that the standard of the Objectivist ethics is the agent's own survival?

Post 1

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 3:13pm

This exact topic has been covered at least once before, you should search google for the old thread and add your question there.

Post 2

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 5:26pm

Or am I right that the standard of the Objectivist ethics is the agent's own survival?

No. The proper Objectivist ethic emphasizes an agent's flourishing, not mere survival.

Post 3

Sunday, July 12, 2009 - 8:06pm

Or am I right that the standard of the Objectivist ethics is the agent's own survival?

No, the standard is "man's survival qua man." The purpose is the agent's own survival. "Survival" in this context does not mean extending an agonizing terminal illness; It refers to the kind of action that will maximize a healthy, happy life, assuming that that choice is open to the moral agent. In this respect, there is no difference between "survival" and "Flourishing." One survives best by flourishing.

The difference between standard and purpose can perhaps be illustrated by the following example. The standard of canine veterinary medicine is the health and well being of dog qua dog -- of dog as a certain kind of animal; the standard of feline veterinary medicine is the health and well being of cat qua cat -- of cat as a certain kind of animal. These are the standards that the veterinarian uses to evaluate and promote the health and well being of any particular dog or cat that is brought to him for care. So, one could say that the purpose of canine or feline veterinary medicine is the health and well being of the individual dog or cat that the vet is examining or treating.

In the same way, the standard of the Objectivist ethics is the health and well being of man qua man -- of man as a certain kind of animal; the purpose of the Objectivist ethics is the health and well being of a particular human being -- namely, the moral agent (since the Objectivist ethics is a version of egoism).

- Bill

Post 4

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 4:57am

Good answers.

Christopher's question likely stems from an existentialist's perspective (where there is no "man-ness" in men -- i.e., no "human" nature). On the existentialist view, humans are considered to be those other things that look like us and act like us. On the existentialist view, getting other humans to act 'ethically' or 'morally' consists of a con-game.

The most popular con-game is to posit sacrifice as a moral ideal, and to drive morality by either guilt or fear. If humans weren't fearful, an existentialist says, they wouldn't be moral. This thinking runs at least from Hobbes to Nietzsche (though Nietzsche accepted the terms of the "con" and merely turned it around). However, appealing to natural human needs and the natural happiness that flows from meeting them -- is out of the question in the existentialist's mind (because man doesn't have a nature).

What that means is that these answers, while good, won't persuade Christopher -- if they introduce irritating cognitive dissonance with an existentialist world-view (assuming he holds the existentialist view, the one most-likely associated with the question that he asked).

Ed

Post 5

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 8:48am

I neglected to address Christopher's more fundamental question:

I think it is standard Objectivist thought that parents owe certain treatment to their children. (They must try to take care of them as they see fit, not be negligent, etc...). I have been asking myself lately, however, whether the standard which demands such treatment is something other than the parent's own life. I know that parents often get something out of raising their children, and even believe that many parents would not regard what they normally do for their kids as sacrifices (at least because of how much they value their kids.) However, I don't see how people owe their children certain treatment simply out of concern for their own survival.

The purpose of morality is one's own survival (and happiness), but that implies the right to pursue it, which in turn implies an obligation to respect the rights of others if one wishes one's own rights to be recognized and respected. If you place someone in a dependent position, then he has a right to be supported by you until he can support himself. For example, if a thief is jailed, such that he cannot provide for his own survival, then he has a right to be supported by his jailers. If his survival needs are neglected, his rights are violated.

Similarly, when parents have children, they place them in a dependent position in which the children are unable to provide for their own survival. The parents thereby incur an obligation to support the children. The obligation derives from the principle of individual rights. If one wishes one's own rights to be respected by others, then one must respect the rights of others, including the rights of one's offspring to be supported until they are mature enough to support themselves.

Egoism doesn't simply mean that you should pursue your own interests while ignoring the rights of others. You cannot very well pursue your own interest if your rights aren't respected, and you can't demand that others respect your rights, if you're not willing to respect theirs. Egoism and individual rights (including the rights of children) are inseparable.

- Bill

Post 6

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 9:27am

That said, then the sooner children learn how to support themselves [or become independent], the better off they'd be?
(Edited by robert malcom on 7/13, 9:27am)

Post 7

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 6:23pm

Thanks William. I thought you're answer was very good. I also never thought about the Objectivist theory of rights in that way.... in the sense that one respects the rights of others in order to have one's own rights recognized and respected. I will enjoy thinking about the implications of that idea.

Post 8

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 9:57pm

Thanks, Christopher.

The essential idea is that you can't demand that others respect your rights if you're not willing to respect theirs. Thus, you have only two alternatives: either you are not obligated to respect the rights of others, in which case, they are not obligated to respect yours; or they are obligated to respect your rights, in which case, you are obligated to respect theirs.

Which of these two alternatives is preferable? Clearly, the second. The first involves mutual sacrifice; the second, mutual gain. The first is self-sacrificial; the second, self-interested.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/13, 9:59pm)

Post 9

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 8:09am

Bill,

Your argument for obligatory parental care is akin to the 'tit-for-tat' model ( example abstract ) utilized in Game Theory. It's a 'calculative' justification. It's a 'Do unto others as you'd have done unto you' theory. However, I don't see it as the ultimate justification of obligated parental care. Instead, I view parenting as a chosen obligation to raise other humans real close to you. On this view, the concepts of humanity and love are introduced -- whereas they may remain absent in your 'tit-for-tat' justification.

You could say that you're nice to folks (or kids) because you are looking forward to them being nice back at sometime in the future. It's a calculated investment. I'm not against calculated investments in others, but I think that there's something more than that involved -- and more than merely peripherally involved -- in raising kids.

Comments?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/14, 8:11am)

Post 10

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 8:58am

Ed, it's an argument for rights. How is respecting the rights of others in one's self-interest? It is, because it's in one's self-interest to have one's own rights respected -- to be free from the initiation of physical force -- to have control over one's own life and actions. You can't have that unless people are willing to respect the rights of others -- to abstain from the initiation of force against others. You can't demand that people respect your own rights if you're not willing to respect theirs. This is not a calculated investment. It's a logically necessary principle.

Parental care is a "chosen obligation," only insofar as the parents actually choose the children, but if they do choose them, then the parents are responsible for the children's welfare. They are responsible for it, because they placed the children in a position of dependency, in which the children cannot provide for their own welfare.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/14, 9:02am)

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/14, 9:06am)

Post 11

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 - 10:34am