The Virtue of Selfishness And Children

Shayne,

First off - try that line on the ladies and see how it goes over. Just saying. It's a real dickish thing to say.

Second - I do think it's slightly different but not too much. Expecting a woman to keep that agreement is pretty stupid. It's easy to say one thing when you aren't faced with a real situation. Legally, that agreement means nothing - he'd still be on the hook financially - because the child has rights, too. I beleive that is what everyone is leaving out here - the child has a reasonable expectation for their parents to make their best efforts to be good parents, and they have a legal right to be taken care of. The child has rights, too. So - legally - the guy has to pay support.

The ethical question is, should he make a real effort to be a good father beyond that?

Post 41

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:22am

Lee,

The child has rights, too. So - legally - the guy has to pay support.

The ethical question is, should he make a real effort to be a good father beyond that?

Yes children have rights, including to be clothed, fed etc until they're old enough to look after themselves. But by parents who've chosen to look after them. If the father is unwilling to do so then as Luke said earlier, the mother can either abort, bring the child up herself or have the child adopted. (On the other hand if the mother chooses not to have the child there isn't much the father can do, except perhaps offer to see her through the pregnancy in exchange for letting him bring up the child alone.)

MH

Post 42

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:23am

Lee: It's irrelevant that you think it's "dickish", it's only an example designed as an attempt to comprehend your bizarre viewpoint.

So OK, you still think he's obligated. Next question: Suppose it's not a date, she's just wants a more enjoyable way to get a sperm donor. Or, let's say she likes his company, it is in fact a date just not a long-term thing, but she is also interested in a sperm donor, so is killing two birds with one stone. Both parties are aware of this.

Is he obligated in this situation?

Post 43

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:24am

Luke,

He has the moral right to say it, sure. But he and you are wrong. Go back and look at what I object to him saying: That he has no more responsibility for the existence of the baby than I. This is false. The baby cannot exist without his action of sleeping with a woman who, if we are still within Lee�s example, wants children. I didn�t make that choice, he did. If she becomes disabled and that baby is in need�then it is his moral responsibility to care for it. And don�t repeat the unchosen line. He chose his actions that could reasonably be expected to come to this situation. Perhaps he will now choose a vasectomy.

Jon

Post 44

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:25am

Glenn,

They are equivilant at all. Someone deciding to become pregnant isn't the same as someone accidently becoming pregnant. I mean, that's pretty obvious - difference between somone skidding on the freeway and intentionally crashing their car. the car is wrecked either way, but that is the only similarity. In this case, theres a child in either case but the way that child was convienced is totally fdifferent.

Post 45

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:29am

LOL - when I said it's dickish I said "Just saying...' which means, "This isn't relevant to the argument, but I'm pointing it out as a side comment anyway.'

And my view that father should be responsible for children is 'bizarre'? I think it's not just ethical, but common enough to be common sense. That's not the definition of bizarre - it's not an out of the oridinary postion to hold. Saying fathers have no responsibilty other than paying for half an abortion - that IS bizarre, as in an out of the ordinary position. (Besides, a gentleman pays for the entire abortion - but this isn't about abort etiquette.)

Post 46

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:42am

Jon griped:

If she becomes disabled and that baby is in need�then it is his moral responsibility to care for it.

Wrong. The baby needs to be adopted by willing and able parents.

Lee moaned:

I think it's not just ethical, but common enough to be common sense.

Wrong. Objectivism fundamentally challenges 2500 years of self-sacrificial ethics. I think you still have some work to do to grasp this. A common occurrence does not make it "common sense" or even within the bounds of reason, much less within the bounds of rational egoism. Look at the formerly "common" tradition of slavery.

Post 47

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:54am

In my opinion Hong had got it right already back at post #6.

Luther, MH and Hong are just banging their heads against a brick wall on this one.

Lee is what Linz would call an Objecti-Christ. He can't get past his own need to make children his highest value and therefore expects us to sacrifice ourselves for them as well. No wonder he has problems with accepting free-markets! I dare say he has problems accepting the principles of objectivism in the first place!

He is not receptive to rational discourse because he has his own emotive agenda. Why debate him further?

Post 48

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:55am

Luke,

If he fails in his responsibility, then I agree with you, of course, that the child should go to qualified adopters. This doesn�t change the fact that after her, he is the person responsible for the existence of that baby. Not you, nor me, nor taxpayers, nor charity-givers at churches. Him.

Why do you keep saying that I exclaim, or that I gripe? You are the bitching about his right to make babies all week long and walk and how the law unfairly comes down on him for it.

Jon

Post 49

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:56am

Luther - you are confusing your views with Objectivism. They aren't the same thing. Your bizarre position isn't one I've ever heard as a tenet of the philosophy. And respectfully, I've forgotten more about Objectivism than most people know - so don't talk down to me as if in the fullness of time I'll realize the crystal clear logic of your position. This isn't a fundamental, by any stretch and you're making a mistake by treating it as one.

It's obviously an issue you have personal feelings on Your thoughts may or many be correct, but my opinion is that fathers - even accidental fathers - need to be responsible, and that doing that is in full accordance with a rational value system. You are dropping the context of what is a rational response to situations that are unplanned.

Post 50

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:04pm

Marcus - it's wrong to distort someone's opinion, make wild conclusions based on that distortion and then to pat yourself on the back for being so observant. That's not rational discourse, and neither are ad hominems. Your post had no content, as in zero. You didn't make an argument, or state facts, or do anything but psyhcologize. That's not using the tools of reason, such as evidence and logic. It's fallicious on the face of it. And you're the science leader? Come on...I learned logic, formal and informal, when I was 17. Use it. State your opinions, put forth facts, draw conclusions and so on - but stop arguing against the man, argue against the FACTS. Or drop the premise of reason altogether so I know where I stand.

Post 51

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:22pm

Jon brought good cheer to the forum when he noted:

Why do you keep saying that I exclaim, or that I gripe? You are the [one] bitching ...

I like to use colorful language. Your employment of the colorful metaphor "bitching" shows we both have a penchant for such terms.

... about his right to make babies all week long and walk and how the law unfairly comes down on him for it.

Lee concurred:

Your bizarre position isn't one I've ever heard as a tenet of the philosophy.

Read "Of Living Death" in The Voice of Reason to learn Ayn Rand's argument for abortion rights. She did not just argue about the non-rights of a fetus, but more importantly, about the rights of the woman to live her own life according to her own values. These same rights apply to men as well. A man who walks and leaves the baby in the care of adoptive parents allows all concerned parties to live their lives according to their values. This satisfies both rights and responsibilities effectively.

Post 52

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:26pm

Lee: Why didn't you answer my question?

Post 53

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:28pm

Correct me if I'm wrong - Ayn Rand said the part about woman's right to an abortion. And then you - not Ayn Rand - added the part about man's right to walk away after making the woman have the baby, in order to give it up for adoption. Do I have that correctly? Did AR mention anything about how men shouldn't have to pay child support if they decide that paying for a child isn't in 'their value systems'? Or was that just you saying it?

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/04, 12:34pm)

Post 54

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:34pm

Shayne - sorry, I was distracted by your insult. Plus I'm working.

I still think he's obliged ethically to rationally and responsibly adjust his value system to changing circumstances, even circumstances not of his direct choosing, but are a fully known risk going into a sexual relationship. This obligation isn't to the woman - it's to the child primarily, and to the woman qua parent. It's also an obligation to him not to evade reality by pretending his circumstances hadn't change and not to evade responsibilty for the unintended cosequences of his wanting to get nookie.
Nookie qua nookie, that is.

(Edited by Lee Stranahan on 3/04, 12:35pm)

Post 55

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:38pm

Lee politely asked:

Correct me if I'm wrong - Ayn Rand said the part about woman's right to an abortion. And then you - not Ayn Rand - added the part about man's right to walk away after making the woman have the baby, in order to give it up for adoption. Do I have that correctly? Did AR mention anything about how men shouldn't have to pay child support if they decide that paying for a child isn't in 'their value systems'? Or was that just you saying it?

She did not explicitly address the man's role one way or the other in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. However, I see my position as much more logically consistent with her view than yours is. To buttress my claim, the Objectivist philosopher Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent audio tape and brochure for sale at http://www.aynrandbookstore.com defending a woman's right to choose. In the Q&A on the tape, he does explicitly suggest that a man ought to have as much a right as a woman to "abort" his rights and responsibilities to a fetus. Learn more at

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/prodinfo.asp?number=CB08C&variation=&aitem=3&mitem=6

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/prodinfo.asp?number=CB50E&variation=&aitem=4&mitem=6

Post 56

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:38pm

Luke,

These same rights apply to men as well. A man who walks and leaves the baby in the care of adoptive parents allows all concerned parties to live their lives according to their values. This satisfies both rights and responsibilities effectively.

Spot on :-)

Lee,

Luke's argument is (at least in my opinion) a valid extension of what Rand did say, by which I mean that the principle Rand applied to women implies Luke's application to men.

MH

Post 57

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:44pm

The case here is one that deals with responsibility without authority, which I addressed in my Solo article titled (surprise!) "Responsibility without Authority". To paraphrase the John Galt quote I cited at the end of my article and apply it to the case of the man and the woman here:

"Why would his moral stature be at the mercy of her actions?"

Post 58

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 12:49pm

Lee said:

They are equivilant at all. Someone deciding to become pregnant isn't the same as someone accidently becoming pregnant. I mean, that's pretty obvious - difference between somone skidding on the freeway and intentionally crashing their car. the car is wrecked either way, but that is the only similarity. In this case, theres a child in either case but the way that child was convienced is totally fdifferent.

Lee,
Your reasoning is becoming as sloppy as your typing. The difference you point out is obvious, but irrelevant to this discussion. At the point the woman chooses not to have an abortion or not to give the baby up for adoption, that is, at the point she choses to have the baby and to raise it, there is no difference with respect to the man's responsibility from the case of the sperm donor. It doesn't matter whether she used a turkey baster or did it the old-fashioned way. In either case, at the point when the decision becomes hers and hers only, the man has become nothing but the sperm donor.

Glenn

Post 59

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 1:02pm