Not kidding about “the virtue of selfishness”

I guess if the Nazis had allowed the killing of the unfit individually, without coercive taxation and government mandates, then it would have been defensible according to the arbitrary bloodlust articulated by the alleged “Center for the Advancement of Capitalism”:

So in the anti-abortion advocate’s eyes, a parent’s desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality. For example, consider this recent press release from a conservative anti-abortion advocacy group which celebrated Plain’s birth announcement:

The Palin family is a wonderful example of a family who made the right choice to embrace their child and his future. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), commends Governor Palin, saying, “She is even more beautiful inside than out. Her proud and warm announcement of the birth of their special child revealed the depth of love and faith of this extraordinary woman. May God give America more women and statesmen like her.

“Special needs children can bring out the best in people. They draw out compassion, patience, a joy for the simple things in life in people around them,” says Wright. “In some ways, we need special needs people more than they need us.”

That is, we need the mentally retarded to teach us how to better sacrifice our lives and divest ourselves of our self-interested ways more than they need us to care for them. At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as “the worship of retardation.” Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child’s severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less.

Get that? Palin is actually guilty for not aborting her child.

I’ll say this much. Reading this cainite apologetic does open my mind up to the possibility that there are indeed certain classes of people that the world would be better off without. But just in case we start prejuding all Randians, I offer counter-evidence.

Honestly, do Randians ever offer any objective limits to their selfishness? If it is wrong to be or feel obligated not to kill a child, then why wouldn’t it also be wrong to feel obligated to pay any other debt. Wouldn’t “rationality” demand that one simply do whatever one can get away with?

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged and thinking of it as heroic. That impression has not survived. Objectivism seems to have become a rationalization for pretentious cowardice.

7 thoughts on “Not kidding about “the virtue of selfishness”

  1. pentamom

    I suspected this sort of thing would come out sooner or later, ever since Palin was nominated. I’ve become convinced that, apart from a relative minority who operate on some form of libertarian principle, most vocally pro-choice people genuinely are pro-abortion, to the point of seriously (but not openly) advocating that abortion is the preferable choice over life in many individual cases. When you consider how many arguments are made on the basis of “bearing and raising a child in conditions X, Y, or Z is too much to expect of such and such a mother” it’s hard to escape the conclusion that at a certain point, poverty, ignorance, or disability constitute “Lebensunwertes Leben” in a disturbing number of people’s minds.

    The sleight of hand in the article you quote is quite something. Because we believe that there is something worthy to be learned from caring from those who lack, we somehow “worship” that lack for itself. For all the Randians claim to base their views on remorseless logic, the sequitary is definitely out for a long lunch at that office.

    Reply
  2. pentamom

    And of course, there’s the smuggling in of the idea that not slaughtering the defective is somehow logically and morally equal to going around deliberately inseminating women with defective DNA. I mean, what other conclusion are we supposed to draw from calling it a “quest” to bring disabled children into the world? Not taking lethal action against certain children now = quest to multiply those children.

    I don’t know how many people buy this line of thinking, but I’ve observed that while there are few real Randians in the world, the most off-beat of arguments eventually get themselves subtly insinuated into popular thought. Can anyone say N.I.C.E.?

    Reply
  3. Pingback: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e33v3

  4. Jim Irwin

    Here, here!

    Wait until Euthanasia becomes mainstream, then the GenXer’s will start “offing” the baby-boomers in interest of saving medical costs and purifying the nation.

    Reply
  5. mark Post author

    I just remembered a stirring line from that Rand title I quoted. She said she chose the title, if I recall, “for the reason it scares you.” Well, in retrospect, I am indeed scared.

    Reply
  6. Jim Irwin

    I also posted this quote from Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamazov on the friendfeed. Although written in the mid-nineteenth century, the observation is still relevant. Here is Dostoevsky against materialism—whether objectivism or socialism or modified capitalism.

    “Look at the worldly and at the whole world that exalts itself above the people of God: are the image of God and his truth not distorted in it? They have science, and in science only that which is subject to the senses. But the spiritual world, the higher half of man’s being, is altogether rejected, banished with a sort of triumph, even with hatred. The world has proclaimed freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs: only slavery and suicide! For the world says: “You have needs, therefore satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the noblest and richest men. Do not be afraid to satisfy them, but even increase them”—this is the current teaching of the world. And in this they see freedom. But what comes of this right to increase one’s needs? For the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; for the poor, envy and murder, for they have been given rights, but have not yet been shown any way of satisfying their needs. We are assured that the world is becoming more and more united, is being formed into brotherly communion, by the shortening of distances, by the transmitting of thoughts through the air. Alas, do not believe in such a union of people. Taking freedom to mean the increase and prompt satisfaction of needs, they distort their own nature, for they generate many meaningless and foolish desires, habits, and the most absurd fancies in themselves. They live only for mutual envy, for pleasure-seeking and self-display. To have dinners, horses, carriages, rank, and slaves to serve them is now considered such a necessity that for the sake of it, to satisfy it, they will sacrifice life, honor, the love of mankind, and will even kill themselves if they are unable to satisfy it. We see the same thing in those who are not rich, while the poor, so far, simply drown their unsatisfied needs and envy with drink. But soon they will get drunk on blood instead of wine, they are being led to that. I ask you: is such a man free?”

    Reply
  7. Paul Baxter

    For a much more positive perspective on this issue, look into the work of Jean Vanier sometime when you get a chance. Any web search will get you there.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *