You write:
I rationally justified all that had to be done to raise a family, and did it. It was NO sacrifice.
My point is, you would have done it anyway, even if you had never studied philosophy, science or logic. You would have done it out of LOVE, a natural aspect of your soul. The rational justification you tout came after the fact. Apart from love of others, romantic, familial and philanthropic, the world would indeed be a much worse place. We have enough social psychopaths as it is. But fortunately, we have a Divine heritage that is active in most people. The manifestation of that love is what is commonly called 'decency'. Blaise Pascal wrote, "The heart hath reasons that reason knows not of."
And so does yours, Hank, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
To look into one's heart and understand that force and fraud are not acceptable ways of getting by is to acknowledge the existence of a Moral Whole of which each of us are parts. The fact that this is perfectly compatible with reason is no criticism of moral obligation, and does not prove that it is derived solely from reason.
I still invite you to demonstrate how love is derived from reason alone, or reason supplemented by empirical observation. On the contrary, we come to this life fully equipped with a conscience and an ability to love that is limited only by our preoccupation with trivial pursuits. I am not holding myself up as a moral paragon, we all have our limitations. Nor do I doubt in any way your moral sincerity about your family. However, that was not the question I posed.
Please understand, I am writing this strictly as a courteousy, because there may be some sincerity in your question. I do not do this to explain myself—I do not explain to anyone.
If you mean by “love” what most people do, some vague, but perhaps intense feeling, that is some causeless “sense” of desire and passion. If so, we have nothing to talk about.
Love is an act or recognition, a recognition of a value in another individual, a value so high all other values are subsumed by it. A rational person can only love one who is worthy of that love. Indescriminate unearned undeserved love is the kind of love given or sold by a whore or a prostitute.
A rational person loves their family because they are the greatest value in the world to him or her. A man or woman who “falls” in love has simply found the one that is so valuable to them, that life without them would not be worth living. The children resulting from that kind of love are both their “work” and their “potential” which it is their personal joy to produce. As in all work, there is the possiblity of disappointment. As in all work, one puts of immediate pleasures for the sake of long-term rewards. These are all rational choices, and if not rational—well just look around you at the disasters most make of the lives and families because they are not rational. Feelings and sentiment can never replace reason.
The entire subject of love is a very big one. If you are sincere, the following are two articles I wrote some time ago now:
“Sex, Love, and Marriage”
http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles7/marriage.html
Ayn Rand, Beauty, Love, and Tenderness
http://theautonomist.com/autonomist/articles11/gentlelove.html
[In the above you will find one of my disagreements with Rand. I diagree with several things, but there is no need to lie about her. Both articles were written very hurriedly, I’m afraid, and do need editing, which I’ll get to some day.]
As you will see, if you read the articles, true romantic love is not even possible without rational objective values.
Now you never responded to the lie about Rand’s books not having children in them. I think you ought to at least be honest enough to do that.
Hank