Kevin's Watch

rusmeister wrote:I imagine arguing is pointless. I'll just say that I don't agree on the rape question - it is merely an extension of the same principle. (If you have a principle, what is the basis on which you are making an exception? Convenience?)

Well, quite obviously (I would have thought), the basis for the exception is that the rape victim didn't have a choice in the conception of the child. This is an exception to the rule that parents have an obligation to their children, upholding the exception-less principle of volition being necessary to form an obligation.

On nihilism and anarchism. Yes it is. (Thank you, Rawedge Rim!)

What do you mean nihilism and anarchism? I am an anarchist; I most certainly am not a nihilist.

You'll take what you can from this life like a vacuum cleaner. Then you'll die and your meaning ends. Why should I get back as much as I can? As soon as you factor in death it becomes meaningless. Thus, nihilism. Your philosophy leads to death - suicide or murder. Convince me why I should live!

I find this extremely offensive. You know very little about my philosophy (evidently), and I would ask you not to make such gross assumptions in future.

James wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I imagine arguing is pointless. I'll just say that I don't agree on the rape question - it is merely an extension of the same principle. (If you have a principle, what is the basis on which you are making an exception? Convenience?)

Well, quite obviously (I would have thought), the basis for the exception is that the rape victim didn't have a choice in the conception of the child. This is an exception to the rule that parents have an obligation to their children, upholding the exception-less principle of volition being necessary to form an obligation.

On nihilism and anarchism. Yes it is. (Thank you, Rawedge Rim!)

What do you mean nihilism and anarchism? I am an anarchist; I most certainly am not a nihilist.

You'll take what you can from this life like a vacuum cleaner. Then you'll die and your meaning ends. Why should I get back as much as I can? As soon as you factor in death it becomes meaningless. Thus, nihilism. Your philosophy leads to death - suicide or murder. Convince me why I should live!

I find this extremely offensive. You know very little about my philosophy (evidently), and I would ask you not to make such gross assumptions in future.

My apologies. I was careless in expressing my thought.

I was referring to this:

That said, I think everyone is perfectly justified to get everything they can out of the system. The state will take (with force) from you your whole life--get as much of it back as you can!

If one starts from an assumption that you should take what you can get from life (compare with a "Circle-of-Life" type philosophy, which says "you should never take more than you give") then the focus in any event is on obtaining things for the self, which, being doomed to die, offers no hope or significance for the meaning of all of that 'taking'. It brings to mind a plague of locusts, who take what they can get from the prairie farms and leaving empty devastation in their path. I don't believe you intend this, and hold some kind of genuine line or limit to prevent this, but it IS the logical conclusion of that thought as expressed.

Well, quite obviously (I would have thought), the basis for the exception is that the rape victim didn't have a choice in the conception of the child. This is an exception to the rule that parents have an obligation to their children, upholding the exception-less principle of volition being necessary to form an obligation.

And thus, the child of rape is deprived of a right to live, because of the mother's right to choose life or death for that child - she has every right, then, to throw the baby into the woods (whether it is called murder or by its euphemism, abortion). Speaking to a grown-up child of rape to see what they think of that would give a different perspective on the whole question.

I do apologize for striking so bluntly. I'm trying to hold a civil discussion, and not to engage in personal attacks or offense. Thanks for pointing it out!

rusmeister wrote: You'll take what you can from this life like a vacuum cleaner. Then you'll die and your meaning ends. Why should I get back as much as I can? As soon as you factor in death it becomes meaningless. Thus, nihilism. Your philosophy leads to death - suicide or murder. Convince me why I should live!

On the other hand, why shouldn't you take as much as you can from this life is an equally valid question.

Personally, as a moral relativist, I don't see any difference to the universe whether you do or do not. Just as I see no difference to it should you live or die.

The choice, like any potential meaning, is your own. Nothing cna force you one way or the other...there's the true beauty of free will. You can do anything you want.

It's up to you whether you add or take away, but in the long run, I don't think it matters much. For every person who takes, there is a person who gives. (OK, maybe the ratio isn't as equal as all that, but you see what I mean.) And vice versa.

--A

Avatar wrote:

rusmeister wrote: You'll take what you can from this life like a vacuum cleaner. Then you'll die and your meaning ends. Why should I get back as much as I can? As soon as you factor in death it becomes meaningless. Thus, nihilism. Your philosophy leads to death - suicide or murder. Convince me why I should live!

On the other hand, why shouldn't you take as much as you can from this life is an equally valid question.

Personally, as a moral relativist, I don't see any difference to the universe whether you do or do not. Just as I see no difference to it should you live or die.

The choice, like any potential meaning, is your own. Nothing cna force you one way or the other...there's the true beauty of free will. You can do anything you want.

It's up to you whether you add or take away, but in the long run, I don't think it matters much. For every person who takes, there is a person who gives. (OK, maybe the ratio isn't as equal as all that, but you see what I mean.) And vice versa.

--A

I think a difference to the universe (unless by that you mean impersonal nature) is the black hole we leave when we die (see George Bailey in "It's a Wonderful Life"); but of course, the most important thing is the difference to ourselves. We do have selves; and these selves tend to want to subject everything to themselves. Hedonism and stoicism are frequent responses to this, in various forms and under various names. Hedonism says you should take what you can. Stoicism says pretty much the opposite.

Sounds like the philosophy espoused in "The Giving Tree" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Tree . There's your ultimate example of 'givers' and 'takers'. It's actually quite repugnant if you work it out, though.

If our moralities were completely different (ie, if your black was my white and vice-versa), we would probably be obliged to kill each other like monsters when we clashed. Our moral compasses must have a general orientation towards good that more or less agree, despite the differences.

It's kind of sad that it has become necessary to prove the objective existence of the phenomenon that is usually known as "sin", although people who find the traditional name repugnant (2x!) will no doubt prefer a euphemism and heavy scientific terminology to mask the idea.

rusmeister wrote:I was referring to this:

That said, I think everyone is perfectly justified to get everything they can out of the system. The state will take (with force) from you your whole life--get as much of it back as you can!

If one starts from an assumption that you should take what you can get from life (compare with a "Circle-of-Life" type philosophy, which says "you should never take more than you give") then the focus in any event is on obtaining things for the self, which, being doomed to die, offers no hope or significance for the meaning of all of that 'taking'. It brings to mind a plague of locusts, who take what they can get from the prairie farms and leaving empty devastation in their path. I don't believe you intend this, and hold some kind of genuine line or limit to prevent this, but it IS the logical conclusion of that thought as expressed.

The 'system' was referring only to the state. I believe the state is inherently corrupt and parasitic. As such, I feel that taking as much as you can from the state is kind of like taking back something that was stolen from you.

This is very different to how I view life in general. I don't see life in terms of what you take vs what you give. For me life is about what you can produce, what you can acheive... it is about lving your values and creating hapiness.

Since I believe that all interactions should be voluntary (with society, other individuals... any interaction), there is no need to think in terms of the parasite (what can I take?). This is because with voluntary interactions, if a relationship is not mutually beneficial, then the party that is losing out will terminate it.

It is only with forced interactions (like my relationship with the state), that human parasites can exist.

And thus, the child of rape is deprived of a right to live, because of the mother's right to choose life or death for that child - she has every right, then, to throw the baby into the woods (whether it is called murder or by its euphemism, abortion). Speaking to a grown-up child of rape to see what they think of that would give a different perspective on the whole question.

It is an extremely sad state of affairs and a horrible, horrible situation. Rape is a terrible crime and can have extremely far reaching consequences (as is very well demonstrated in a certain series of books). I don't knw if I would feel more sorry for the mother or the baby... but in my opinion, she would have no obligation to the child. That doesn't mean, of course, that she would not choose to look after, just that I do not believe she should be forced to.

Why SHOULD they, ultimately, be voluntary? The very verbs 'should', 'must', and 'ought to' (+ or - 'not') point back to a moral compass.

Are humans created equal*, or did they evolve unequally? If the latter, then there is no reason why might does not make right, but then, neither can you talk about either 'rights' or 'should/must'. If the former, then the moral compass points to a Creator. In any social construct, strength (power and wealth) tends to come out on top. To what authority would you appeal for your rights (especially if you are an anarchist)? The framers of the US government (in its inception, at any rate) appealed to God.

*See the Declaration of you-know-what.

Yes, mine is an argument from morality.

Interesting discussion so far. Unfortunately, I don't think we've yet given Tjol a useful answer to the original question.

In the first post, Tjol wrote:Question is, which is the better way to reward your parents, through self inflicted hardship, or self inflicted accomplishment, when those two things cannot be simultaneously acheived?

Tjol appears to have accepted the idea that he owes his parents *something*. His question is about the best way to honor their sacrifice (or at least, that's the way it reads to me). (I like the phrase "self-inflicted accomplishment". That's it, make the kid succeed despite himself! )

My childrearing days are nearly done (except for the college loans ). I can tell you that, in general, my parenting philosophy is/was to equip my kids to be the best adults they can become. That includes feeding, housing, and educating them adequately; giving them a strong moral base and a good sense of right and wrong; as they get older, giving them enough slack in the leash to test their wings, but not enough to hang themselves; and, eventually, totally unclipping that leash.

This, I believe, is my obligation to my kids, and I think most parents would agree on the broad outlines. Granted, there's a wide latitude for interpretation there. Different people have different parenting styles, and differing ideas of what's most important to teach a kid. But I think that's the job description in a nutshell.

And yes, parents do sacrifice a fair amount to get the job done. The level of sacrifice varies from parent to parent: nanny or daycare or stay home? Electronic babysitters (TV, video games, etc.) or no? Public or private schools? At what age do they start driving, and who owns the car (and pays the insurance)? Just contemplating the choices one has to make is exhausting. Certainly I'd have a different life if I'd never had kids. I'd likely never have changed careers. I'd have visited all the places in the world on my "short list", and probably a few others, too. I would almost certainly be retired by now.

So what do my kids owe me in return for my devoting a huge chunk of my life to them? Each parent will likely have a different answer to that question, as well. My answer is that since my aim all along was to create healthy, functioning adults, that's the best payback my kids can give me. If they're self-supporting and generally contented with their lives, I'll be satisfied.

Later on, when I get old and decrepit, my answer may change. But seriously, it may not. My mother (who died last month at 93) fully expected me to move back in with her and take care of her. (I was happy to take care of her, but I wanted her to live with me. And she didn't want to move. Stalemate.) I'm hoping not to be like that; I'm hoping I can provide for myself to the end of my days, without ever having to rely on my kids. I've already told them that if I'm at the point where I ought to be in a home but I'm digging in my heels, they should just freakin' put me in a home already.

So maybe that's what kids owe their parents: becoming self-sufficient and reasonably happy adults; and help later on, when the parent gets to a point where they can no longer do for themselves. Oh -- and you could say "thank you".

It's wrong for our parents to say, "You owe me!" We don't have children so that they can do things for us. We have children so we can do things for them. IMO, those things are to give them love and make them feel safe. We don't "owe" them a college education, because not every parent can afford to give their child one. But that doesn't mean that parent cannot be the best parent in the world.

And when we give our children what we're supposed to, they'll return it. Not out of obligation, but because of the laws of love. You can't run out of it, and if you give it, you'll get it back.

A good way to think of it might be that Pay It Forward idea. Our parents owe everything to us, and we owe everything to our kids.

sgt.null wrote:i also disagree with the notion that the individual holds the lead over the group. the breakdown we see in society is because we promote that. sometimes what is best for the group will require sacrifice of the individual. we used to believe that.

I'm gonna go with James, Ayn Rand, and Mhoram on this one. Heh.

Brinn wrote:

Rus wrote:Some things ought to be common sense. When they cease to be so, it is generally because sophistry has lead you away from it.

This is, perhaps, one of the most profound statements I have read on this site. Thank you Rus.

Absolutely!!

sgt.null wrote:i also disagree with the notion that the individual holds the lead over the group. the breakdown we see in society is because we promote that. sometimes what is best for the group will require sacrifice of the individual. we used to believe that.

I'm gonna go with James, Ayn Rand, and Mhoram on this one. Heh.

Then you may want to take a page from Rand, and consider "Enlightened Self-Interest". If everyone decides that they owe no one anything, and that one should take all that can be taken from "society", at some point, there is nothing left, and one has the anarchy that James seems to want (which seems to be "Do as you will shall be the whole of the law"). Once such a society comes about, it's a straight up 'dog eat dog" world, and the hell with the weakest.

No. Not thinking it's ok to sacrifice the individual for the public good is not the same as thinking it's ok to take all you can from everybody regardless of the cost to everybody.

And anyway, Rand's ideal is just fine. It would be great if everyone wanted to get all they could if they had the moral attitude of Galt, Rearden, etc.. But many, many, many people do not consider gaining at others' expense to be repulsive. Cheating is a perfectly legitimate, morally acceptable method of getting what you want for many people. Why don't more people think that pride in having achieved all you can by the sweat of your brow and the ideas of your mind is more important than gaining more material wealth and fame by cheating? I don't know. And it's not Rand's fault. She thought it would be great if the world ran that way, and she was right. But it does not.

Fist wrote:It's wrong for our parents to say, "You owe me!" We don't have children so that they can do things for us.

That depends A LOT on culture I'd say.

Agree with Prebe.
I also think, F+F, that you are extrapolating an argument (that the individual must be sacrificed) from RR's actual argument, and no one here is making that argument, AFAIK. It is not necessarily a logical conclusion of saying that the individual must limit himself in certain ways for the sake of society; that is, all others around him, which is what I think RR is getting at.

This, like everything else, illuminates that it really IS important what a person believes, because everything springs from it. It does matter whether your culture or faith teaches that children should slave for their parents all their life, or whether it teaches (as ours does to a considerable degree) that children owe nothing to their parents - the cult of the individual. The first question becomes, "What do you really believe?"

Prebe wrote:

Fist wrote:It's wrong for our parents to say, "You owe me!" We don't have children so that they can do things for us.

That depends A LOT on culture I'd say.

Absolutely. But only from a cultural standpoint. Slavery is fine in some cultures. But even then, it depends on the individual. After all, slaves brought up in a culture that has slavery sometimes revolt.

rusmeister wrote:I also think, F+F, that you are extrapolating an argument (that the individual must be sacrificed) from RR's actual argument, and no one here is making that argument, AFAIK.

sarge is. Again:

sgt.null wrote:i also disagree with the notion that the individual holds the lead over the group. the breakdown we see in society is because we promote that. sometimes what is best for the group will require sacrifice of the individual. we used to believe that.

I'm arguing against that. Omelas sucks. It's ok for someone to voluntarily sacrifice him/herself for others. It's heroic. It is not ok to demand it. I would not sacrifice one of my children for any or all of you, and I do not expect any of you to sacrifice any of your children for me or all of us.

rusmeister wrote:The first question becomes, "What do you really believe?"

Yes. And I'm answering.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Prebe wrote:

Fist wrote:It's wrong for our parents to say, "You owe me!" We don't have children so that they can do things for us.

That depends A LOT on culture I'd say.

Absolutely. But only from a cultural standpoint. Slavery is fine in some cultures. But even then, it depends on the individual. After all, slaves brought up in a culture that has slavery sometimes revolt.

rusmeister wrote:I also think, F+F, that you are extrapolating an argument (that the individual must be sacrificed) from RR's actual argument, and no one here is making that argument, AFAIK.

sarge is. Again:

sgt.null wrote:i also disagree with the notion that the individual holds the lead over the group. the breakdown we see in society is because we promote that. sometimes what is best for the group will require sacrifice of the individual. we used to believe that.

I'm arguing against that. Omelas sucks. It's ok for someone to voluntarily sacrifice him/herself for others. It's heroic. It is not ok to demand it. I would not sacrifice one of my children for any or all of you, and I do not expect any of you to sacrifice any of your children for me or all of us.

rusmeister wrote:The first question becomes, "What do you really believe?"

Yes. And I'm answering.

Thanks for the clarification!

Yes, anyone who suggests sacrificing the individual for society is usually not talking about themselves and their families. This is the whole problem with that attitude. I guess we can ask Sgt Null what he means...

However, if we exclude that one concept, there is a general point about placing individual rights above all. Christianity does hold the individual soul to be worth more than all societies put together, but that needs to be understood in a Christian context (ie, that the societies are temporary and the soul is eternal). Outside of it, it just becomes a cult of the individual, which is the actual state we have, where people desperately try to get people involved in things like community service, and that is something that judges have to sentence people to, because it is seen as a punishment rather than a discharge of a civil duty, and everything in our society becomes about individual rights, and individual reponsibilities become something that is just...not talked about.

Hope that makes a little sense.

i didn't read the rest of the posts in this thread after i came across this statement:

Rawedge Rrim wrote:In the moral sense, we are definately obligated to care for the people who raised us, with at least the level of care shown by the parents; to do otherwise is the height of selfishness.

that lets ME off the friggin hook then. or wait. maybe i should move in with each of them for six months of the year each (they're divorced) and bring my husband and we could fight and knock each other around and yell and scream and if they need help with say...their taxes (mother's not very good at math) i could yell at them when they get confused and confuse them further, and i could make them eat hot dogs while i broil myself and my husband a steak, and i could refuse to drive them anywhere they need to go and make them walk, and i could hole myself up in the basement and get drunk and raise hell, oh yeah!!! i could have parties when they're trying to sleep, and i'm sure my husband wouldn't mind beating me up once a week just to make my parents feel helpless and make them nervous wrecks!!! yeah and i'd have to take my dad's dog away from him too cause i'm sure he doesn't know how to take care of him properly. oh yeah...there's LOTS of things i could do to give my parents the level of care they gave me. and i could get my two younger brothers in on the action too!! i'm SURE my brothers and i could think of ways to provide them emotional scars to grace their golden years the way they provided them for us in our formative years.

Well, I disagree with RR even without taking that kind of thing into consideration. We do not owe our parents; they owe us. They took on various responsibilities when they decided to have children. That decision on their part does not obligate us in any way. And now I've chosen to take on those same responsibilities by having kids of my own.

rusmeister wrote:However, if we exclude that one concept, there is a general point about placing individual rights above all.

The Randian concept I'm referring to, and agree with, is that society does not have the right to tell me how to use my mind or body, and that it does not have any right to the money I make with my mind or body.

rusmeister wrote:Christianity does hold the individual soul to be worth more than all societies put together, but that needs to be understood in a Christian context (ie, that the societies are temporary and the soul is eternal).

OK, I see what you mean. Makes sense. But I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I mean, society can't actually harm the soul anyway, can it?

i only know that i feel no obligation whatsoever to my parents.
they are lucky sonsofb*tches that i even, at this point in my
life, living 3000 miles away from them, LOVE them, dispite the
horrifyingly SH*TTY things my brothers and i had to live through
living with them.

IF they need help in their old age and i can provide it i WILL because
i love them, warts and all. NOT because i feel any sort of MORAL
obligation.

and i'm not interested in telling anyone ELSE how they "should" feel
and deal with THEIR parents.
perhaps if my parents had provided me a loving, SAFE, and SECURE
upbringing, i would be grateful and wish to return the favor.
fact is, they sucked as parents and i wasn't so sure i could do any
better considering the examples i had so guess what...i don't have any
children. surprise surprise.

Lucimay wrote:i didn't read the rest of the posts in this thread after i came across this statement:

Rawedge Rrim wrote:In the moral sense, we are definately obligated to care for the people who raised us, with at least the level of care shown by the parents; to do otherwise is the height of selfishness.

that lets ME off the friggin hook then. or wait. maybe i should move in with each of them for six months of the year each (they're divorced) and bring my husband and we could fight and knock each other around and yell and scream and if they need help with say...their taxes (mother's not very good at math) i could yell at them when they get confused and confuse them further, and i could make them eat hot dogs while i broil myself and my husband a steak, and i could refuse to drive them anywhere they need to go and make them walk, and i could hole myself up in the basement and get drunk and raise hell, oh yeah!!! i could have parties when they're trying to sleep, and i'm sure my husband wouldn't mind beating me up once a week just to make my parents feel helpless and make them nervous wrecks!!! yeah and i'd have to take my dad's dog away from him too cause i'm sure he doesn't know how to take care of him properly. oh yeah...there's LOTS of things i could do to give my parents the level of care they gave me. and i could get my two younger brothers in on the action too!! i'm SURE my brothers and i could think of ways to provide them emotional scars to grace their golden years the way they provided them for us in our formative years.

That's one of the reasons I put that rider in my statement. I realise that there are parents out there that weren't worth the dirt it would take to bury them, and there are others that probably should qualify for sainthood. Mine fell somewhere in the lower middle, while my grandparents (who half raised me) fell closer to the upper half.

Actually, under Judeaism and Christianity, there are no qualifiers. You are obligated to your parents regardless of the bastards they are.