[js1138]

As so often happened when Rand's theories ran afoul of reality, this passage has her trying to force the square peg of motherly self-sacrifice into the round hole of her objectivist philosophy. And, as is typical with Rand, she is forced to make assumptions and assertions that don't stand up to scrutiny.

I haven't read enough of this thread to know how Ayn Rand got into this, but it's obvious to most parent s that a child's life has infinitely more value than one's own. This is true both psychologically and objectively.

Perhaps not in species that produce thousands or millions of offspring, but humans invest their entire lives just barely replacing themselves. Of course Rand might argue that this value is a matter of individual choice.

[r9etb]

I haven't read enough of this thread to know how Ayn Rand got into this....

It started back on the first page. Somebody joked about the irony of the Ayn Rand Institute writing the article in question, and I followed up with an aside asking how they'd deal with the fact of Lily Potter's altruistic sacrifice. This was followed by a recitation from Atlas Shrugged, and the race was on.

but it's obvious to most parent s that a child's life has infinitely more value than one's own. This is true both psychologically and objectively.

I agree that my own children's lives are more valuable than my own. Their mere existence makes moral claims on me that do not fit within Rand's philosophy. Further, I think that other peoples' kids have certain moral claims on me as well -- IOW, my choice in the matter is not necessarily relevant.

(At any rate, I think it's more profitable to discuss this stuff than all of the silliness about magic and sorcery that's been rattling around this thread....)