I wrote:
Dave Surls does what so many critics of Objectivism do — he denounces Obejctivism without actually addressing its content, i.e. without supporting his claims at all.
Dave Surls replied:
No, actually, I didn’t do that. I quoted Ayn Rand, and directly addressed her remarks.
Sure, you quoted her as follows:
Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.
And then you made this statement:
And, that’s swell…as long as you’re not a parent.
That hardly qualifies as “addressing her remarks”. Instead, you simply asserted a claim — without any support — that Rand’s statement precludes the possibility of parenting, i.e. you asserted the claim that to be a parent necessarily means contradicting Rand’s position.
But did you offer us any analysis or reasons or evidence to support that notion? No.
Did you show how and why parenting necessarily requires behavior contradictory to Rand’s position? No.
Have you addressed any of the excellent points made in other comments (see for instance the comments of LucyH and Donna B) showing how and why good parenting is fully consistent with the morality of rational self-interest that Objectivism advocates? No.
No, rather than do any of that, you stick to the simplistic notion that if one undertakes any unpleasant activity — any activity that does not yield immediate satisfaction or pleasure to you, but instead benefits others — activities such as changing your baby’s diaper or helping your child with taxes — that said activity cannot be motivated by self-interest and must be altruistic.
But this is demonstrably false, as other commenters have explained. Your motivation in changing the diapers or helping with the taxes rests on the fact that you value both the baby and the child — you value their well-being — and pursuing, protecting and promoting one’s own values is the very definition of acting in rational self-interest.
Now, if you went door-to-door through random neighborhoods changing the diapers of stranger’s babies and doing the taxes of random kids on the streets — neither of which you have any particular reason to value — while permitting your own baby to suffer in a dirty diaper and your own child to struggle with his taxes — that would be altruistic.
It is clear that you have taken only a most superficial look at Objectivism, seen what appears at first glance to be problems in its application and practice, and concluded that it is — to use your own words — “absurd” and “non-viable”. That’s understandable — Objectivism challenges and contradicts so much of what is viewed as completely non-controversial that such misgivings and misunderstandings are to be expected.
But the fact that you cling to your views in the face of the explanations offered in these comments demonstrates that you are beyond a simple misunderstanding and into active evasion of the truth. Why do that? What do you gain by closing your mind to the truth?
