The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

I posted nearly this exact same thing on the Objectivist Parents discussion group, and I'm reposting here to provoke thoughtful discussion. It's an ethical question meant to define some of the boundries, if there are any, of the virtue of selfishness.

This is a fictional example, but it's not an unrealistic one. It's
something you see in reality all the time, and I don't think it's a lifeboat scenario, either.

Imagine a bachelor, happily living a single life. I'll call him
Frisco, just for fun - no relation. Our Frisco is not married and doesn't want
to be. They have their work, hobbies and friends. They date someone,
do what people do when they date, and the woman becomes pregnant. She
decides that she wants to keep the baby.

Frisco now has a situation. A kid is on the way, and Frisco still
doesn't want a kid. Having a child and helping raise that child would
mean giving up time spent on work and hobbies. It would change
friendships, and cost money. A kid wasn't in the plan, and doesn't
fit in with Frisco's values or interests.

The selfish thing to do is to look primarily at one's own values.
Frisco does that and finds short term or long term, he doesn't have
an interest in having a kid. He knows it will probably effect the
child in a negative way, but he selfishly compares the effect on his
life and the effect on the child's life - no contest, he wins. His
life is his life. He will miss out on being a parent, but in either
case he misses out - and he doesn't value parenting.

I would argue that that person needs to change their values, and that
by referencing only their own values, they aren't acting properly.
Not only that, I think they have an ethical responsibility to not be
mopey and bitter about it - and not because it's in their long term
best interest, but because it's in the child's long term best
interest. So, I'm not saying they should act like a sacrifical
martyr, or complain about their lot in life and how they didn't want
kids. For the sake of someone else, a person they are responsible for
helping bring into the world, they need to modify their value system.

This situation - children - is unique, in my opinion. Don't jump from
this to 'well, with what you're saying, anyone can lay claim on
anyone else.' I'm not saying that, but I am saying a child can lay
claim on a parent. And this can be exteneded out to parenting in
general.

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/03, 6:06pm)

Post 1

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 6:58pm

I'd get an abortion if I were the girl. That is if I were not able to raise the kid myself.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/03, 6:59pm)

Post 2

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 7:01pm

Yes, but this little Socratic story is about the bachelor, so it's him we're questioning. Sorry, Hong - you're a bachelor!

Post 3

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 7:17pm

So you assume that the girl has the right to lay such a claim on the guy?

Well, in that case, if I were the bachelor, I'd give the girl and the kid whatever support that is reasonable and would never want to have anything to do with either of them.

Post 4

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:02pm

I appreciate you getting involved in the discussion, so I don't want to be a bad host or sound snarky. Assuming the pregnancy wasn't planned, but an honest failure of birth control - I think the woman definately has the right to make a decision about whether she wants to have the baby or not. I believe that's true whether she wants to keep the baby, have an abortion or whatever. Her uterus, her choice - the guy just has to deal with it.

But that's not the primary question here. Your suggestion of 'never having anything to do with them' past, I guess, bare minimal support is unethical, as far as I'm concerned. The kid definately do anything wrong except be born, and should not suffer because you decided something was more important than being involved as a parent. It was okay to have those values pre-baby; post-baby, a paradigm shift is required.

Broadly, I think that selfishness is a limited virtue; in other words, there are cases where it's not a virtue. Honesty is also a limited virtue; it's one thing to lie to a friend about cheating with their wife, and another to lie to the policeman who wants to put you in a cage for a few years because you own a bong. Selfishness is a virtue for the most part, but in this case where another innocent person whose existence are reponsible for is involved, putting their interests on at least an equal footing with yours (and possibly higher) is the only ethical choice.

Post 5

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:23pm

Deadbeat dads are the crap of society, they should be stomped on and scrapped on the curb. If he dosen't want to raise him, fine, but he choose to have sex and unless he is retarded we all know what the possibilities are there. He dug that hole for himself and he has to pay for it. I don't give a damn if it was an accident, if the women decides to have the child then it is his responsibility to, at the very least, split the cost.

Post 6

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:28pm

Lee,
If the pregnancy is an accident, there is no binding between the guy and the girl over the child. If the girl wants to keep the child, fine. It's her choice. But why does it has anything to do with the guy? She's free to raise the child herself. If she wants to raise the child with him together, then the will of both parties need to be respected.

My first post states what I think should be the rational thing for the girl to do. My second post would be my way of dealing with the situation where the girl is not reasonable, e.g. stake an unjustified claim on me.

We had some discussion over child-rearing and self-interest at SOLO Parenting forum. (You are welcome to sign on to read and post there since you are so interested in the related topics.). Most of us parents enjoy the experience of raising children and consider it one of the most important productive activity that human does. But we also recognize that each individual has different values. For some people raising children is just not of any value to them. And I came to the conclusion that for such people to have children would be immoral.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/03, 9:36pm)

Post 7

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:30pm

Clarence - I agree completely, It's actually interesting you zoned in on the deadbeat dad thing, because my wife has a site where she's currently 'outing' her deadbeat dad - it's at http://www.AlanBoxer.com - pretty compelling.

Post 8

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:38pm

I guess you've never experienced the 'freedom' to raise a child by yourself, because that's not a phrase I'd use to desribe any of the single mothers I've known. The part to do with the guy is that he's the father.

And I don't think it's rational for her to have an abortion. It's not irrational, either. It's an option, nothing more. I don't know that it's the best one, by any means.

I think it's immoral to refuse to change your values when a child is involved. Immoral for starters, immature and irresponsible for another. People are free to have different values in some areas, but there are some values that are more universal. I nominate 'care of children' as a universal one.

Post 9

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 10:04pm

"A man's self is his mind -- the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values" (from Ayn Rand, "Selfishness Without a Self," Philosophy: Who Needs
It, 50).

I don't see any difficulty including one's responsibility for a child in a rational sense of Randian selfishness. An individual is responsible for his actions which are a product of his mind. I think it is difficult for many people to accept an expanded definition of the self without an extended discussion with some examples. Ayn Rand wrote an entire book to do just that. But members of this forum should have little trouble understanding that your 'self' is more than what is contained within your skin. Your legitimate responsibilities (and the values that define them) are part of your self. I hope this is clear.

Post 10

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 6:14am

We currently live in a society that enforces laws to hold a man financially responsible for the pregnant woman's unilateral decision to abort or to carry the fetus to term. Let me expand the context to include the right to choose parenthood for both sexes. "Choice for Men" proposes to do just this. Read more at

http://www.nas.com/c4m/faq.html

If we had such a truly just and gender-blind legal precept, then Frisco could quite morally "opt out" of the unchosen role of parent and let the pregnant woman decide for herself what to do with her body by her own values. Conversely, if he did choose to assume the responsibilities of parenthood, he should also enjoy a commensurate level of authority in that child's upbringing.

I could share some anecdotes, but I will save that for an article I want to write on this subject at some undetermined future date.

Post 11

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 6:43am

Luther,

I couldn't disagree more - the woman's choice is the only one that counts when it comes to determining what to do about a pregnancy. It's her body.

Should she decide to have the child, it's THEIR baby, however. The law should in no way allow or encourage someone to 'opt out' to the consquences if you're a man. The woman doesn't even have that option - she HAS to deal with the consequences of getting pregnant. Nature isn't fair in this regard, and the woman comes out on the losing end. It's up to ethics and the law to balance things out.

There isn't anything just about allowing a father to decide to be irresponsble, and thereby foist all the responsiabilty onto the mother. Our laws are set up for the child's welfare, and that is as it should be.

Post 12

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 6:53am

Lee,
I'll take a step back. Let me be the bachelor again, please explain to me what is the women's reason in wanting to have the child? What is her plan on how to raise the child? I'd then decide what would I do.

Post 13

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:00am

Lee ranted:

Nature isn't fair in this regard, and the woman comes out on the losing end. It's up to ethics and the law to balance things out.

This sounds like egalitarianism and not rational egoism to me. However, since you clearly have already fully committed yourself to your position intellectually and emotionally, no amount of argumentation on my part will change your mind. So I will simply agree to disagree with you without respecting your opinion on this issue. I might respect you, but I will not respect your moral judgment on this particular matter.

Post 14

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:08am

She wants to have the child because having children has always been something she'd planned to do. This wasn't the way she planned to get pregnant, but life sometimes gets in the way.

She expects Frisco to be involved as a father. That means not just paying money, but being involved actively - there to help during pregancy, and involved afterward changing diapers and watching the baby and so on.

She doesn't expect he'll marry her, although she's not opposed to that if it seems like it will work. They aren't 'in love', she knows, but there was initial attraction and something else could develop.

Her plan isn't to work very much if at all while the child is young, and to be a stay at home Mom. She thinks that this is in the child's best interest, and she knows that the cost of day care often eat up any income earned. She had things she wanted to do, too, and she's putting them on hold in order to be a good parent. She expects Frisco to do the same - but he doesn't want to.

He has zero interest in diaper changing or staying in. He has no interest in paying nearly half his income, or spending time. No interest in having a kid at all.

Post 15

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:10am

Luther,

Explain how your position is fair to the child. I don't see that.

Post 16

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:34am

Lee,
You just described a shameless looter. I'd shrug.

Post 17

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:53am

Hong,

Interesting. You're the SOLO Parenting Leader, so I wonder - do you see any of her actions as inconsistent with her values of wanting to be a good parent? Or inconsistent with the child's welfare? Or is the only person who matters Frisco in this case?

And, let's take what you say. Frisco calls her a shameless looter and says he'll have nothing to do with her or the child. He also stamps his feet, and flounces his hair. His lip quivers. He gets back to his life. You're saying that's the moral thing, right? So - what about the child? Are you saying he shouldn't factor in the child, at all?

Post 18

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 8:38am

The woman has three options:

Abort the fetus
Put the baby up for adoption
Keep the baby

No matter which choice she makes, current law forces Frisco to accept the consequences. This means the state has the legal authority to force money from his pocket whether he likes it or not. This robs Frisco of his right to live his own life according to his own values -- in effect, to become a slave to the values of the woman.

If you actually read the "Choice for Men" link I posted earlier, you will see that the law frequently allows single parent adoptions. Is it "fair" to these children? Certainly. It comes to an optimization of self-interest for all concerned parties in the context of a values-driven free market.

I do not see how this situation amounts to a different circumstance. The woman has options I just listed. Frisco needs to have the same options. If the woman ends by making an irrational choice, that problem does not belong to Frisco, but to her and to her child.

Will you show a willingness to authorize the state to start compelling poor women to have abortions, or to snatch children from all single parent homes, or to outlaw all single parent adoptions? I fail to see how you can arrive at a consistent, integrated vision of the state's role in parenting without granting these powers to the government.

While I appreciate your benevolent intentions to assure helpless children get adequate care, your current direction seems to move irrevocably into the direction of welfare statism. After all, Frisco might want to be a good father but could develop some medical condition that prevents him from earning an income. Does this mean that the taxpayers should then foot the bill for his child's expenses?

The harsh reality is that helpless children find themselves in no viable position to "demand" anything. They should take what their caretakers give them and feel grateful for it. The rest falls to charity, not government, to support.

This discussion begs other questions, such as what the law should consider as "child abuse" and when the state should rightfully invade the home to remove these children and place them into a better situation. But that drifts away from your topic.

Incidentally, since your post appears partially motivated by your wife's negative experience with her "deadbeat" dad, I have to ask: Should men whose girlfriends have abortions against the wishes of those men post Web sites identifying their "deadbeat" girlfriends? Switch the genders and you basically have that picture -- arguments between the genders about "wishing" the other person had values contrary to the ones they actually have, then demanding that the law compel those people to act contrary to their values. I know your wife's context is different because there was an actual marriage, but my question remains valid.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 3/04, 8:53am)

Post 19

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 9:11am