Found on the Web

Sharon wrote,

Last night at dinner, someone counselled a young child on the social courtesy of leaving the last wafer-thin-mint on the plate; or, at the very least, of asking first, if anyone else would like it.

Sharon, why is it the child's obligation to leave the last mint on the plate or to first ask if anyone else wants it? To paraphrase Rand, if he is selfless and considerate when he offers it to others, are they not selfish and inconsiderate when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? And if the child should leave the last mint untouched, then why shouldn't others? -- in which case, what you have is the failure of anyone to benefit from it! Is that preferable to the child's benefiting from it? Does virtue consist in sacrificing a value?

What is the Objectivist dividing line between self-interest and greed?

That depends on what you mean by "greed"? But if it is greedy for the child to take the last wafer, isn't it just as greedy for others to take it when it is offered to them? If the child should offer it to others out of courtesy, then why shouldn't others decline out of courtesy? Who then deserves the last wafer on this theory of ethics? Clearly, no one! Such is the fallacy of altruism. Such is the absurd double-standard of extending to others the moral prerogatives denied to oneself.

- Bill

Post 21

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 9:05am

Hi Bill,

I define greed, as taking more than one has earned. As regards food, greed is eating more than one needs for good health and enjoyment etc. etc.

I assign courteous manners and other forms of social etiquette, as the beginnings of moral development in children. Children are shown that one does not need to indulge the first idea to hit their minds. Gentle folk prefer to introduce children to society through family life; rather than leaving them to grab and fight amongst themselves until the strongest one rules; as happens in dog families. This dog family analogy is most effective with children; as they wish to be less like dogs and more like humans.

Pro-active teaching of superficial rules of etiquette, gives a child an opportunity to begin practicing personal restraint at hiser stage of psycho/social development.

I'd be delighted to explore this idea with you.

Sharon

Post 22

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 9:17am

Well I think Sharon is confusing a philosophy with some common table manner etiquette. Table manners are a product of our evolution. Humans are social animals and tend to enjoy eating with others. Because this is so ingrained in our psyche from our evolution, some manners of this kind from social eating came about. Our anscestors ate together in packs, and because generally the food eaten was hunted and prepared in a group effort (division of labor) all who participated in eating the food participated in getting and preparing the food. So when there is one last morsel left, the etiquette of asking if anyone wanted the last piece came about from the idea of making sure one was not taking more than what earned, i.e. stealing. Another words, in Economic terms "Does anyone think I'm in breach of contract by eating this last morsel? Is anyone in disagreement that this is part of my compensation"

It's also common etiquette to not belch at the dinner table. I can't give you any rationale why because there is none. It's also common etiquette to wear clothing in public. Why? I don't have a clue.

But honestly I think this stuff is petty and a red herring. It has nothing to do with Objectivism and I think is rather quite silly.

To the issue of greed, Ayn Rand gave a rational definition of greed that is different from one of the common uses of the word as Stephen pointed out. Greed in some contexts is commonly used to refer to some kind of "fraud". Ayn Rand did NOT define the word in this way at all. I guess it goes back to a word like this being an abstract concept. Ayn Rand concretized the term greed differently than what other people have. But to carry on a conversation about Objectivism, both parties have to agree to Rand's definition of greed for there to be anything fruitful from the discussion. Otherwise you'll have petty endless disputes.

And to make the matter even more confusing, when someone talks of "Corporate greed", you'll get different viewpoints from people using the same phrase. For the anti-Capitalists, Corporate greed means a company making a profit, regardless of whether the profit was made through peaceful trade amongst men or not. This condemnation of greed is wrong.

For others, Corporate greed is defined as Corporations lobbying Congress for subsidies, (i.e. looting) or lobbying for regulatory legislation to protect their industry (i.e. creating artificial monopolies in the marketplace). Another words, greed in this instance is defined as fraud, or theft.

So Sharon, I think it would behoove you when discussing Objectivism on this forum to not take Rand's words out of context or change the meaning of those words she provided.

Post 23

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 9:29am

Hi John,

It's easy to think that I am confused, because I am beginning to think that those who see confusion do not realize that children begin their moral development in infancy.

Cognition is a precursor to morality. Etiquette is a precursor to understanding property rights. I'm not talking about ten-year-olds, John. I'm talking about three-year-olds.

Is this helpful?

Sharon

Post 24

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 9:48am

As to Ayn Rand's coining of the phrase "radiant greed"; I'm talking about the non-radiant state.

Is there another word for that, other than theft? I consider it rather obtuse to say that "theft" is the cause of that picture of an obese body, Michael Newberry posted over on the disgusting things thread.

How does your family civilize children, John? Do you see it as the beginning of moral growth?

Sharon

Post 25

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 10:25am

Sharon,

==============
Instead of speaking to you and Landon, Glenn; could I speak to the two of you through Ed?
==============

[Twilight Zone music] This is getting spooky, and I like it that way.

;-)

Ed

Post 26

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 10:48am

Sharon,

You mention a Playboy quote of Rand (what are YOU doing reading Playboy, anyway -- I thought you were happily married?).

;-)

Anyway, back to the Rand quote. Let me insert something in there -- to stir up the discussion somewhat ...

"When I came here from Soviet Russia...I wanted to secure a society in which I would be free to pursue my own concerns and goals, knowing that [children] would not interfere to wreck them, knowing that my life, my work, my future were not at the mercy of [a child's] whim."

So, when folks do ask about why Rand didn't procreate, look no farther than this quote. Now, what you seem to be saying goes beyond the life of any one wo/man. You are making a broad call to action to a group of folks, no? You are excited about how influential you can be to a young, thinking, feeling being (a child). You would like us all to be aware of this influence -- and it's consequences. Am I reading you right, so far?

If you want to educate folks, then I have no qualms with that, Sharon. What some others here may react violently to, though, is for you to come off as a dictaphone. On this note, here is a self-quote from another thread ...

Rev,

============
the understood, not the commanded
============

There never were 5 wiser words.

Ed

And, also, please keep in mind that folks each have their own lives to lead (a point so simple that it can be overlooked), and how this plays into any broad call to action (on ANYTHING). It is very easy to slip into collectivism, from the talking point on which you are standing [an Eric Hoffer quote would be perfect here, but I digress]. And I think that the others have pointed this out well.

Our agreements:

-kids matter (because of the kind of creature they are; ie. human)
-kids are the future
-kids can be influenced
-kids are walking 'balls of potentiality'

Our 'apparent' disagreements:

-kids are optional to individual adults (it's not necessary for each individual to interact with kids, though it would not be a bad thing)
-the best advice is to live well (nothing is superior to this) -- and, for some, this may not include spending time interacting with kids
-the 'future' is not my -- or ANY individual's -- responsibility [a Popper quote would be perfect here, but I digress]
-your wily rhetorical manners often come off as condescending (you MIGHT know this though, but you act as if you don't)

Talking points.

Ed

Post 27

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 11:50am

Ed,

Thank you for your kind and serious consideration of my position.

The recency factor says that I should comment first on my alleged condescending wily rhetorical manner. Perhaps you could elaborate on this. I assure you that this is not my intention. I am just trying to be courteous and polite in the face of great opposition to a new idea. To lighten the tone I throw in a few asides, similar, in spirit, so I thought, to ones I have read elsewhere. As I am composing my responses, novel ideas fly into my head, and sometimes I indulge myself by typing them out. I type with two fingers only; so there's lots of time for mischief, between composing a new thought, and seeing it safely on the page. On the bios of some posters, many posters claim to like dry humour and wit, sarcasm, and puns, etc. Have I gone over the top here; or do those types of humour refer to the kind of comedians certain individuals hope to become?

Regardless, I am deeply sorry that I have been offending everyone with my writing/speaking style. Dogmatic individuals have accused me in the past, of using a condescending tone. It surprises me that you can sense it in print. Certainly, none of it has been directed at you, Ed, deliberately or covertly.

In my own defense, I will say, that the tendency of many posters, to pounce enthusiastically on errors, causes me to use a somewhat pedantic tone, in hopes of avoiding unwarranted criticism. Instead it has attracted scorn. Well, I will just have to get over myself, and stick to the facts. I appreciate the help Ed. Please feel free to draw my attention to any future condescending statements etc. that strike you. I'm always open to suggestions.

Sharon

Post 28

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 1:40pm

Back to facts, Ed,

Those Playboy Magazines came in my young husband's dowery; collected for the articles.... The end of that quote contained the call to action.

"This is still my attitude today. Only today I know that such a society is an ideal not yet achieved, that I cannot expect others to achieve it for me, and that I, like every other responsible citizen, must do everything possible to achieve it. In other words, I am interested in       politics only in order to secure and protect freedom.

You see Ed, it is Ayn Rand who said it is every responsible citizen's must do, to achieve and protect freedom.

I took this call seriously; and over the years, I developed a learning environment that supported children under the age of six, in their desire to be free. While responding to my call for them to become responsible, and autonomous, and by helping me to create a social milieu in which they were as free as was legally possible, these children developed self esteems as big as the side of a barn door. I learned from cooperating with very young children, that they are capable of creating and maintaining a free society; when a teacher/philosopher applying Ayn Rand's principles, supports them.

Continuing to answer Ayn Rand's call, I have come here to make my report. It matters not what subjective attitudes inexperienced individuals may have towards children, these facts will not change. This phenomenon did not occur once; but year after year, over two decades.

I have theorized that had Ayn Rand been privy to this process, she would have changed some of her thinking. She would have talked to disbelievers about short term pain for long term gain. I'm as certain of it as anyone can be of anything.

The problem I am experiencing is caused by another phenomenon; jumping to conclusions. Instead of asking for clarification, skeptics attack the messenger.    Wouldn't the logical thing be to look into this, and see what use can be made of these discoveries?

Sharon

Post 29

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 1:52pm

Sharon wrote,

I assign courteous manners and other forms of social etiquette, as the beginnings of moral development in children. Children are shown that one does not need to indulge the first idea to hit their minds. Gentle folk prefer to introduce children to society through family life; rather than leaving them to grab and fight amongst themselves until the strongest one rules; as happens in dog families. This dog family analogy is most effective with children; as they wish to be less like dogs and more like humans.

Sharon, taking the last mint on a tray that no one else has chosen does not constitute grabbing and fighting. Why should a child be told that he must consider the interests of others above his own? Yet, that is the lesson you are teaching him, if you tell him that he must offer it to others before choosing it himself. If the child grabs it away from someone else who has chosen it first, then that's unacceptable and should be objected to, because it interferes with another person's rights. But it should be objected to on the same grounds as the sacrifice of oneself to others. Just as it's wrong to sacrifice others to oneself, so it's equally wrong to sacrifice oneself to others. If children are taught anything at all about proper behavior, this is what they should be taught, not some altruistic nonsense about placing the interests of others first.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/03, 5:29pm)

Post 30

Wednesday, May 3, 2006 - 2:34pm

Sharon,

I took this call seriously; and over the years, I developed a learning environment that supported children under the age of six, in their desire to be free. While responding to my call for them to become responsible, and autonomous, and by helping me to create a social milieu in which they were as free as was legally possible, these children developed self esteems as big as the side of a barn door.

Good for you!

Meanwhile I'm working on a comic book project I started four years ago and I have nothing in publishable shape. I see people all the time settle in jobs they'll one day grow to hate over children. To many (most) of them the children are worth this to them and it isn't a sacrifice. I don't want to be stuck in a job I'm going to hate long enough I'll grow to hate my children (it happens).

In my case however both Amy and myself have strong career goals and we're very affraid of having to raise schizophrenic children. We may adopt an older child if and when we make some sizable career progress but please keep up the good work and leave ME out of any calls to action.

Also Ed, thanks for bringing up the Rand quote on children. Fits my current mentality quite well.

But as to what she knew wrote on child development she wrote quite a bit on it in her more epistemological works (the compachrios comes to mind).
It seemed like she had a very healthy respect for the development of young minds but wanted no direct part in it herself and wanted to drive the point home that if you didn't want to take part in it you are under no obligation to do so.

As for being a MEMORIZER?!!!! I go out of my way NOT to quote Rand just so I can keep myself in check. If I can't explain the point in my own words maybe I don't understand it well enough to be talking about it. I save Rand quotes for something presented as a challenge to the things Rand "left out" if and when it was dealt with almost word for word by Rand herself.

---Landon

Post 31

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 12:21am

Sharon,

=============
The recency factor says that I should comment first on my alleged condescending wily rhetorical manner. Perhaps you could elaborate on this.
=============

Telling ANYONE that they "have no clue" -- is condescending (note: folks have clues).

==============
Dogmatic individuals have accused me in the past, of using a condescending tone. It surprises me that you can sense it in print. Certainly, none of it has been directed at you, Ed, deliberately or covertly.
==============

And that's because I'm dogmatic, yet spiritual (I believe that you had never thought this possible), the existential instantiation of a John Galt (though I've only gotten folks to admit that I'm Hank Reardon, personified).

;-)

==============
In my own defense, I will say, that the tendency of many posters, to pounce enthusiastically on errors, causes me to use a somewhat pedantic tone, in hopes of avoiding unwarranted criticism.
==============

Everyone does this (reacts to reactions), though few can explain it so well. Good going, Sharon.

==============
Well, I will just have to get over myself, and stick to the facts. I appreciate the help Ed.
==============

Pass by that (dictaphonius) egocentricism, Sharon -- and adopt that ethical egoism, or ethical individualism, as I like to call it. Good on you for being so reflective on your behavior (many of us could use the 'self-reflection' that you, here, illustrate with your behavior). Thanks for being a role model.

Ed

Post 32

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 4:00am

Bill,

You are making the correct theoretical argument that altruism is nonsense.

In this context, we are dealing with a pre-operational child trapped in an egocentric brain. To overcome this limited ability to see the world from one perspective only, this child needs many opportunities for looking at situations from another's point of view. Meeting the needs of the situation is one.

As adults we model polite social behaviours, teach social protocols, and impose reasonable restrictions. Tuition must be learner specific. Social protocols in our family, demand that the last portion on any serving plate be left; unless one really must have it. Then the overeater must ask if anyone else was hoping to have a bit more; thus providing an opportunity for some divying up, or, horrors, drawing attention to the fact that gluttony is at work. Social protocols in our family permit a sideways glance, but we frown on insulting queries.

Social behaviour of all kinds is completely arbitrary. Children need to learn this, at an early age. This is the time for building benevolence into a person's psyche. We want our children to remain in the family group, so that we all may be nurtured and cared for throughout our lives. This is the purpose of our family. It is founded on good will to all its members. We call it co-operating, and meeting the needs of the situation.

As children mature, they become more and more autonomous; and ask to be released from rules. These sessions are opportunities for children to defend their thinking against family traditions. This is when we introduce the idea of making decisions based on your own best interests. Sometimes new social protocols are established; and children take the full responsibility for reinforcing them, until they lose interest.

Altruism is not a word in my everyday vocabulary. It is a clinical psychological term to me, and has nothing to do with family life. I see how Objectivists like to beat others over the head with the word; but it is overused where personal relationships are concerned.

How do you differentiate between cooperation and altruism, Bill? Do you consider cooperation to be collectivist?

I am, however, very interested in introducing the word sacrifice into our dinner conversations. We'll be drinking toasts: to those who sacrificed their energy and time to produce this magnificent meal. Thanks for the idea Bill. I can't wait to see the reactions.

Sharon

Post 33

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 4:15am

An afterthought, Bill,

Do you think that Objectivism needs to overhaul the etiquette books? What about serving yourself before passing the salt? How about holding the door, and permitting someone else to pass through first? Reading the newspaper at the table? Can no behaviour become automatized?

Are these social niceties the thin edge, that opens into full-blown altruism? What practical applications have you made in overcoming these issues?

Sharon

Post 34

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 5:14am

Landon, and anyone who hopes to see, in hiser lifetime a critical mass of Objectivist Thinkers

You misunderstand !

I'm not calling anyone to produce more children. I'm asking, encouraging, begging everyone who can; to get involved with the children already here on earth.

Take a page out of Ed's book. Visit family, friends, neighbours, co-workers, warm bodies who have children; the younger the better. Spend serious time with them and help them to become Objectivists.

Get involved with kindergarten teachers. Talk to them about special teaching strategies needed for individual education such as those developed by the High/Scope Foundation. Introduce Objectivist thinking into the schools, through the back door.

Passing around copies of Atlas Shrugged is very slow; and the results are uneven at most. Volunteering in kindergartens will open your eyes to the great possibilities if Objectivists were to have the school systems eating out of their hands.

Instead of looking at how ridiculous this idea is; start looking at how it could be possible.

Landon, you could start a new book of cartoons, designed, especially for helping children (and their parents) learn to solve life's little problems using Objectivist Thinking.

I'm saddened, Landon, to hear about your family medical problems; but it doesn't mean that you have to be deprived of the company of children. So many of today's children are so starved for attention. Their lives are filled with activities that are mostly solitary, or highly organized. Having the luxury of an adult focused on them as individuals is a rare moment for many children.

This is not altruism, it's an indoctrination strategy. There's a continuum here:

FREE PLAY--->INDEPENDENCE--->RESPONSIBILITY--->FREEDOM--->PRODUCTIVITY--->OBJECTIVISM--->HAPPINESS

Its based on a lifetime process of PLANNING DOING REVIEWING PLANNING ANEW

Perhaps you had an Uncle Ed when you were growing up. Think of how little time it took for you to develop this relationship with him. It takes very little time to establish a symbiotic relationship with a child or two. They're out there looking for you. They'll energize you; I can guarantee it.

Good Luck to you and your wife Landon
Sharon

Post 35

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 5:26am

Landon,

I respect your opinion about not wanting to get involved with children; but I had to make one last appeal. As Ayn Rand said in the quote I cited in Post 28

"I like every other responsible citizen must do everything possible to achieve it."

Post 36

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 6:40am

Thank You Ed

For your careful responses. I do try to remember that children are always watching; and to choose accordingly.

I agree that it was most disrespectful of me to accuse Landon and Glenn of having no clue about child development. It accomplished nothing but alienating Glenn.

Sharon the Contrite

Post 37

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 7:01am

Glenn,

I disagree that you could know, with any certainty how a child's influence would have affected Ayn Rand. I was annoyed to have my theory so summarily dismissed, and to be called confused; but I should not have said that you had no clue about child development. It was very disrespectful of me to speak to you that way. You did not deserve to have to see that insult in print. I am ashamed that I yielded to a momentary annoyance and am sorry that I made such a childish retort. I wish to make amends Glenn; and I hope you can overlook this condescending behaviour.

Regretfully,
Sharon

Post 38

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 7:28am

Landon,

I want to thank you for overlooking some disrespectful and insulting remarks I directed at you and Glenn. Ed has drawn my attention to this condescending behaviour, and I agree that accusing you of having no clue about child development is entirely unprofessional and uncalled for. You did not respond in kind; and I am thankful that you were able to take the high road, and even continued the discussion in a more pleasant vein. I congratulate you for that, Landon; and I am sorry and ashamed that I decided unwisely, to express myself so childishly. I'll try and be mindful of such temptations in the future.

Regretfully
Sharon

Post 39

Thursday, May 4, 2006 - 3:15pm