RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Tough Storge

Monday
November 27, 2006

Tough Storge by Luke Setzer

Parents have a moral obligation to do their best to raise their offspring into fully functioning adults. This obligation comes as close to "duty" as one would ever come in the Objectivist ethics, but it still arises from causality, i.e. from the parents causing the effects of their children's very existence in the first place. The task of nurturing incapable infants into capable adults must include conditioning children to deal with the best and worst aspects of both the metaphysical and the man-made. Helping them to confront the very nature of self-responsibility and its difficult values choices becomes a necessary aspect of sound parenting. These three stories offer concrete, real life instances of such instruction. Objectivists would serve themselves well by learning from them. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (51 messages)

Post 40

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:01pm

Link

Edit

I wonder what Lukes thinks about Spanking!
Ciro

Post 41

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:05pm

Link

Edit

The image below, and that in my post #31 on this string, are from 1960's "Village of the Damned" based upon a novel by John Wyndham, the Midwich Cuckoos. Wyndham also wrote Day of the Triffids

Post 42

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:19pm

Link

Edit

I also agree with the gist of Luke's article, although I may have come off otherwise. My only real issue was with the story about the kindergartener and the problems I have with it may have been in the telling. I have a lesser issue with the story about the mother sending her child to military school. Again, that may have been in the telling. This story appears to have been missing the parts where the mother was more involved before the matter became this serious and the part where she told the son that military school would be his alternative.

So, maybe these stories have been taken too much out of context?

Post 43

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:28pm

Link

Edit

Luke,
You said if your child used his allowance to purchase cigarettes, you would lower his allowance accordingly. I'm assuming that the allowance is a pre-negotiated payment for some service(s) rendered? Say, mowing the lawn is the child's household chore for which you pay him the allowance. If he has done his work and earned the allowance as the agreed upon payment, why does it matter what he uses the money for? It is HIS money at that point, no? If you lower the allowance, wouldn't he be within his rights to decrease his production?

I don't think kids should smoke, and I would also not want to support my child's smoking habit if he had one, but how do we put this in Objectivist perspective? If I want to teach my child the trader principle, then how would I stand by it in this scenario?

Post 44

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:29pm

Link

Edit

Ciro, what do YOU think about spanking?

I spank my child. Sometimes he needs it.

Post 45

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:41pm

Link

Edit

Ted, Village of the Damned was a creepy movie!

Regarding spanking, I agree with Ted in Post 38:

As for spanking, it's mandatory in my book when a child initiates a fight with someone without provocation or willfully destroys property as a provocation.

In other words, an initiation of physical force warrants a retaliatory use of force -- just like an adult would encounter. Since I do not morally oppose Singapore style corporal punishment for certain brutal crimes of wayward adults, I would not oppose the association of physical pain with initiations of physical force in childhood, either.

As for the smoking, Deanna, I would need to give the matter more thought. If I had a child in a situation where we agreed that he would spend every spare moment in preparatory activities like study or sports rather than mowing the grass, and we agreed on a nominal allowance for miscellaneous expenses like snacks, and I warned him before the fact that I would reduce that allowance if I learned he spent the money on cigarettes, then yes, I would have earned the right to do so. But I agree that we would also need to agree on how he intended to spend that money if I paid him for chores. Instead of paying him directly, I might simply deposit the funds into a trust devoted to his education, for example. A parent can find many creative ways to reward his child while protecting those rewards from literally going up in smoke.

Post 46

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 6:55pm

Link

Edit

Luke- Please stop projecting your personal, relativistic preferences as absolute morality...there is no value in smoking, for you. There is no worth in cigarettes, based on your subjective preferences.

Arbitrarily declaring something worthless isn't Objectivist in nature, it's a move towards intrincism...you declare that cigarettes qua cigarettes are worthless, a priori. That's not Objective epistemology, that's moralizing on the pulpit.

There is a clear social worth for some people as it pertains to cigarettes...additionally, there is the enjoyment of one, either with others or alone. I can't tell you how many people I have met by asking "have a light?" or "can I bum one?" Lasting friendships, those, and ones that cigarette smokers share alone...your moral thunderbolts nonwithstanding, there is plenty of value in cigarettes to those who value them.

I consider not only myself an Objectivist but an Aristotelian...A Golden Mean in all things...there is such a thing as mental addiction, but it can occur with anything...the smart thing a parent would do would be to monitor what their child consumes and ensure none of it becomes an addiction...be that snacks, smokes, alcohol or video games. I am surprised at how narrow-minded you are toward something Ayn Rand relished. Personal tastes are not within the realm of Objectivist moral judgement until those personal tastes become self-sacrifice. As a smoker, I know the risks and I take them in exchange for the rewards. That's rational, and you have no right to decry it otherwise.

(Edited by Steven Druckenmiller on 12/03, 7:00pm)

Post 47

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 7:44pm

Link

Edit

In Post 24, I wrote about my moral right to pass my learned values to my minor children:

Cigarette smoking is unhealthy and has no redeeming net value -- period. I will actively discourage any kids I have from engaging in that or any other self-destructive activity.

In Post 46, Steven thunderously replied:

Please stop projecting your personal, relativistic preferences as absolute morality...there is no value in smoking, for you. There is no worth in cigarettes, based on your subjective preferences.

Arbitrarily declaring something worthless isn't Objectivist in nature, it's a move towards intrincism...you declare that cigarettes qua cigarettes are worthless, a priori. That's not Objective epistemology, that's moralizing on the pulpit.

Go back and read my post in context, Steven. I meant to apply my personal judgment of the worth of a given activity in the context of parenting. In my judgment, more life-affirming ways exist to enjoy oneself, meet people, etc. Ayn Rand herself quit cold turkey after being diagnosed with lung cancer -- too little, too late in my view. I want to do what I can to spare any children under my authority of that fate. As you said, the same would apply to "snacks, smokes, alcohol or video games." However, if I had to pick from those four, smokes would rank dead last in terms of potential value.

Post 48

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 8:01pm

Link

Edit

I am surprised how well behaved my nephew Alexander is. He is very happy and sanguine, and cries only when corrected with a strong deep "No!" when he is cranky. Usually, you can simply say "No, Alexander, that's not yours" in a pleasent voice, and he will stop what he is doing. If you put out your hand and ask for something he has picked up, he will hand it over. Much of this seems to stem from the fact that his parents are both quiet well behaved people and that he has not yet had the example of social chaos that he might get from such things as public schools.

His mother says that his playschool does not allow grabbing, which encourages me.

Luke, the first "[it takes a] Village of the Damned" image was in the post where I referenced Damien Thorne and under what circumstances one starts worrying about when love becomes "conditional." I could not find a good still from the original "Omen" movie. But it is also interesting that the boy at front in the second still, whose parents were more loving to him, was the one who stood up against the other evil seeds in the end. The movie was creepy, but it's good. Very good. Just don't show it to your kids too young, lest they get ideas...

Ted

The image is from www.all4humor.com

Post 49

Sunday, December 3, 2006 - 8:18pm

Link

Edit

See, Luke, the problem is that you said that cigarettes "have no redeeming value --period". To me, that doesn't sound like a statement you meant to preface with "in my judgement". To me, that sounded like a moral pronouncement.

Now, the health benefits of smoking are just now getting past the PC-police and seriously being discussed (i.e. moderate smoking can help inhibit Alzheimer's...this is especially true of marijuana smoking [note: as a member of the Army, I would never violate this country's trust in me and engage in what's prohibited]) Below is my reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking#Beneficial_effects_of_smoking

I realize that the studies at this point are not definitive, however, there is likely some value to be had.

My problem with your judgement is that you rank cigarettes as the last thing of the four things I mention...I, however, may rank alcohol as the last thing I would like to see my children consume. Who's right and who's wrong? When it comes down to subjective biases such as these, I say there's really no right answer except for this: whatever the individual has come to through reason and provided that the consumption doesn't become self-sacrifice, there's no right answer as it pertains to individual tastes. Hey, I know that makes me a relativistic whim-worshipper, but my brand of Objectivism has always leaned more heavily toward spectrumism rather than intrinsicism.

So, basically, my judgement counteracts what you say your judgement says...now who's arguing about angels on the head of a pin?

Post 50

Monday, December 4, 2006 - 4:57am

Link

Edit

Steven, if you ever have kids for which you have responsibility, by all means use your own best judgment as I will use mine for mine.

I still say that a glass of wine moderately consumed has more health benefits than a cigarette moderately consumed based on the preponderance of evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine#Medical_implications

I do not consider you a whim worshiper for acting on your own best judgment. I might consider your conclusions wrong, but I respect your thoughtful considerations of the issue.