It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Round 1. KrazyJethro vs ModernAcademia: Self Preservation By Proxy?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:57 AM
The topic for this debate is "The well being of one's family should be a greater priority than the well being of one's self.”

KrazyJethro will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
ModernAcademia will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
edit on Wed 27 Oct 2010 by The Vagabond because: Change of participants.

posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 09:38 PM
To all, please accept my request for a 24 hour extension from this time stamp if possible.. I was made aware of the substitution tonight as I was traveling between the times I sent the request for more information and now.

Thanks to Vagabond and all those involved.


posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 12:58 AM
KrazyJethro was a late addition to the tournament (he stepped up as an alternate) and was not fully informed of the grace period assigned to opening statements. He would not have lost his opportunity to post if he had not used his extension, and therefore he will retain his 24 hour extension.

Clarification added: KrazyJethro will post no later than Sunday. This is in keeping with the same soft start that was given to those who had advanced notice that the tournament was about to begin and also became able to post roughly one day earlier.
edit on Fri 29 Oct 2010 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 04:34 PM
(Out-of-turn post removed by The Vagabond)
edit on Fri 29 Oct 2010 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 10:57 PM
I'd like to first thank the staff of ATS, the debate organizers, and of course my esteemed combatant. I appreciate the opportunity to debate, learn, and enjoy this intellectual pursuit.

Self Preservation By Proxy

The duality of mankind is one of development against instinct; a conflict that pits the intellect against the predisposition. In other terms, humans trend towards searching inwardly for the self, our identity as an individual, and bend our intellects toward those ends. After all that, however, we continue to constrain ourselves, putting the family before the self in myriad ways, great and small.

“Other things may change us, but we start and end with family” ~ Anthony Brandt

The family, in traditional terms, remains to be the building block upon which society is built and is evidenced by the our personal and societal actions, biology, institutions, and our social structure itself. An adult putting the needs of their child before their self is a basic protection for those in our group that require sacrifice. They simply can not do for themselves. Rearing children is sacrifice in itself, from the woman partitioning their bodies for another’s gestation to time, attention, and labor.

Society does not need to have empirical evidence or scientific study, although it exists through even casual observation and is important, to know family is fundamental. In effect, it is no different than using math to decode a beautiful painting. Even in Western Europe and America, arguably one of the more liberal regions of the world, one could ask practically anyone “Is family is the most important thing?” and receive an affirmative response. Asking “Why?” however, would most likely get a superficial response or quizzical look as if you asked why someone liked oranges. Chances are they just do.

“You leave home to seek your fortune and, when you get it, you go home and share it with your family.” ~Anita Baker

Human history is littered with bad ideas, which we discard over time, keeping the most effective models. The supremacy of the family to the self has not changed independent of era, culture, or condition. While the traditional family certainly pertains to the basic unit of society and procreation, the term is not limited to those boundaries. The creation or development of family bonds exist in and are sought after by a variety of groups. Being such a common denominator in human existence, the idea and institution of family can be found in almost everything we do. Scientists study how the family works, strategists apply the model to business, businesses spend money to foster these relationships in the workplace. Families form communities, the natural extension of the family, in specific areas, often times grouping up by other shared attributes or relationships, be it nationality, lifestyle, or outlook. Military units create uniformity in training to build shared experience, fraternity, and esprit de corps. Religious institutions mimic the family relationship in creating safety nets, provided by those with more and given to those who need it.

“There is no doubt that it is around the family and the home that all the greatest virtues, the most dominating virtues of human society, are created, strengthened and maintained” ~ Winston Churchill

The structure and fundamental importance of family in our lives is not an accident. What once was simply biological and a means of survival has continued to infuse the complex network of modern society.

Why? Isn’t the individual key? Aren’t our rights and liberty our own?

Yes, they are, however we choose to sacrifice for security and prosperity, the shared loss and shared gain of the unit. We sacrifice gladly, to our individual families, to our local and national governments, to insurance companies, to our employers and co-workers. The shared purpose provides both protection and a focus that is no achievable by the self alone. Additionally, putting the family first is, by definition, self-preservation by proxy.

Humanities natural interdependency forms units, and while forces within might clash, the unified purpose outpaces the individual pieces. If the well being of one's family is a greater priority than the well being of one's self, you will naturally be taking care of yourself, and you won’t be alone in that endeavor.

Krazy Jethro

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 09:30 AM
Thank you all for setting this tournament up, it's actually my first tournament so this should be interesting.

In my opinion, the well being of oneself is a greater priority than the well being of one's family, because this approach takes care of the family first by proxy.

Let me start off by labelling myself as a libertarian, I believe in personal responsibility and not being a dependant, in doing so and following this way of life the people around you benefit just as much as you do, the problem on the global/national scale is that it doesn't always work out but that's mainly because of the number of people around you who do not follow this same philosophy.
A family is different however, there is a smaller number of peoplein a household and you have alot of influence over these people, so it's actually the perfect setting to promote this philosophy. Libertarianism starts at home!

Instead of just thinking from the heart, let's think with the brain and what benefits come from each approach.

Teaching your family to be self-dependant allows them to be ready for the world, therefore the mutually benefial approach is to be selfish and to think for oneself.
Of course I am talking about a specific form of selfishness here, one that benefits everyone as opposed to me buying food for myself and let everyone else starve, no of course not, I am not on that extreme and neither are my opinions.

Human beings are after all survival machines, family members need to be taught this from the get-go. This does not have to mean that such an approach would sacrifice such important teachings such as family values and raising kids that are family oriented. But as they say "get em while they are young", kids should learn from a very early age what reality is.
If you look at kids in China, India and even Russia you will see approach being much more effective, and in this electronic age with Xboxes, Playstations, TV, iPods I believe this approach to parenthood is even more important than it has ever been.

There is a new culture growing in North America, a culture of raising brats.
How long can generations continue this trend?

Let's be honest here, we as humans are born selfish, and our family members closest to us should learn this as soon as possible. They should know what world they are going to grow up in.
Just as a mother may show unconditional love to her kids even if the kids misbehave or are spoiled, this may not be the most efficient approach, sometimes though love is the most efficient love.

To understand our world is to look at society as a collection of people who only care about their own self-interests.
This means life is competitive, and parents that do not teach kids to be self-sufficient will be what will cause these kids to lag behind.
Love is blind, parents however should not be blind, the are after all raising children.

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 11:40 PM
Natural Cause and Effects

The idea that putting family before the self is not only found to be naturally occurring in humans, but in a variety of life on Earth. From a biological and genetic stance, it is in our best interest to further our genetic line, seeking to improve the family even if it requires sacrifice on the part of the individual. The practice is wired into the psyche of humans, positively affecting physical and mental health. Human proclivity towards altruism not only instills a genetic incentive in the family, but provides increased quality of life for the family and the self alike.

In 1964 W.D. Hamilton, famous for “his theoretical work expounding a rigorous genetic basis for the existence of kin selection and altruism”(1), gave the logical and mathematical insight that was instrumental in the development of a gene-centric view of evolution.(2) Hamilton suggests that behavior decreasing the genetic fitness of the individual but which enhances that of relatives would increase because relatives frequently often carry the same gene. The loss can be compensated for by the gains of the family, which would squarely place it as a potential evolutionary trait. This is evidenced by the studied behavior of ants, termites, various types of birds, chimpanzees, humans, bats, to name a few.

Genetic predisposition is supported by numerous studies, including a recent one by Dr Felix Warneken in the Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. He performed trials both on 18 month old human children and young chimpanzees.

“It is a common observation that human beings, as a species, are extraordinarily
helpful, even to non-relatives”

“Socialization can build upon this predisposition, but it is not its primary source. Human cultures cultivate rather than implant altruism in the human psyche.” (3)

Through trials, the conclusion reached was that not only is an altruistic trait common in the two related animals, but consistently demonstrated that receiving rewards for altruism actually decreased similar behavior in the future. That this was true of both humans and chimpanzees demonstrates genetic causality.

“The reported studies demonstrate that human infants and chimpanzees are able and willing to instrumentally help others. With regard to the ontogenetic roots of altruism, these results indicate that children have a natural tendency to develop altruistic behaviours. Socialization practices can build upon this predisposition for altruism, but socialization is not its original source” (3)

The ingrained altruistic tendencies naturally promote the model of family and its superiority. There is ample evidence that satisfying instinctual altruism result not only in increased mental well-being and quality of life, but increased physical functionality and longevity. The American Psycological Association, in the July 2004 edition of Psychological Bulletin, published that “Psychologists have long known that stress affects our ability to fight infection, but a major new “meta-analysis” – a study of studies – has elucidated intriguing patterns of how stress affects human immunity, strengthening it in the short term but wearing it down over time.” Relieving stress is a major benefit of altruism and has been shown to increase oxytocin, secreted by the heart and brain aid in the relief of stress.(4)

“Altruism promotes deeper positive social integration, distraction from self-preoccupation, enhanced meaning and purpose, a more active lifestyle, and the presence of positive emotions such as kindness that displace harmful negative emotional states. Thus, it is entirely possible to assert that altruism enhances mental and physical health.” (5)

What was once believed to be simply a mental health benefit, has now been shown to have positive physical manifestations as well. The Journal of Health and Social Behavior published a 1998 study by M.C. Luoh and A.R. Herzog, which found that those who volunteered 100 hours or more in, compared to those who did not, were 30% less likely to suffer physical functioning limitations. Conversely, hampering one’s selflessness can work against the individual. The idea of humans as inherently selfish creatures, the idea that “Greed is good.”(6), not only belies the natural basis and benefits, but misrepresents results from conscious or authoritarian restriction on human altruism.

“The prevailing approaches in biology and economics view cooperation exclusively as self-interested behaviour—unrelated individuals cooperate only if they face economic rewards or sanctions rendering cooperation a self-interested choice. Whether economic incentives are perceived as just or legitimate does not matter in these theories. Fairness-based altruism is, however, a powerful source of human cooperation. Here we show experimentally that the prevailing self-interest approach has serious shortcomings because it overlooks negative effects of sanctions on human altruism.”(7)

Science allows us to understand what is already present and how those things came to be. As we grow in our intellect, we also grow in our understanding of human interdependency. It is clear that humans, along with other insects and animals, put family first as a means of being helpful, furthering our genetic survival, and performing as a group. It is how we have adapted to life as humans on this planet and the family-oriented model has succeeded and continues. For reasons of personal and family health, family well-being, genetic continuance, and quality of life, the focus should be on the interests of the family before the self.

It just might make you feel better too.

(1) Misc. Authors, Article on W. D. Hamilton, Wikipedia,
(2) Hamilton, W. D., The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I & II. Journal of Theoretical (1964).
Biology, 7, 1–52.
(3) Warneken, Felix; Tomasello, Michael (2008), The roots of human altruism, British Journal of Psychology (2009), 100, 455–471
(4) Segerstrom, Suzanne Ph.D; Miller, Gregory Ph.D., Psychological Stress and the Human Immune System: A Meta-Analytic Study of 30 Years of Inquiry, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 130, No. 4.
(5) Pang, Shu, Is Altruism Good for the Altruistic Giver?, Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science,
(6)Douglas, Michael, Wall Street (1987), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, American Entertainment Partners L.P., Amercent Films
(7) Fehr, Ernst; Rockenbach, Bettina Detrimental effects of sactions on human altruism, Nature 422, 137-140 (2003)

posted on Nov, 5 2010 @ 09:21 PM
Preface: My apologies for the delay. I wanted to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and all reasonable opportunity to post their first point.

The biological human family is the most rudimentary piece of human structure and hierarchy, so it isn’t any wonder why that small node has been replicated by and is essential to our human societies. Family, as a term, has been broadened to encompass a great many things. Sports teams, military units and branches, clubs, and even companies often times seek to mimic the family in their organizations because of the benefits and mentality it instills in the members.

“The strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same.” (1)

In 1997 “Brian Smith took over as head coach at MU, the Missouri Tiger wrestling program was in shambles. There was no tradition to speak of. No accolades. No championships. Nothing.” (2) Poor funding and some of the worst facilities put the team at a serious disadvantage in ending the rumors the program would be dissolved soon, let alone start winning. By 2007, however, they had become an annual contender for the Big XII and National Championships. This was no accident, but a change in ideology for the program that a critical difference.

“Two-time All-American Tyler McCormick said that Smith has established a family-like atmosphere on the team that only intensifies the passion that the wrestlers have for it. “I think that the way that he runs this program is more of a family than a wrestling team or an athletic program,” McCormick said. ‘I mean all these guys here are like my brothers and so I like that aspect of it.’”(2)

The creation of family puts individual needs second, but brings a sense of belonging, acceptance, and being a part of something larger than yourself. This is fundamental to accomplishing more than any of the pieces alone. Creating a team by infusing the family model is taught to coaches and business leaders; so much so that an industry has been created to do just that.

There are myriad examples of success in business by applying the model to it’s internal structure and attitude. MedStar Health has made a name for itself even though it is a 26,000 member non-profit. Cathy O’Brien says “Not only is she happy with her benefits, but she said there’s a sense of camaraderie among her and her coworkers. ‘The family atmosphere, that’s the thing that I can pinpoint’”(3)

Toyota, being typical of Japanese companies, has a different approach to corporate structure than most large Western companies. Bob Dottard, in describing an incident while he worked for Toyota, said “I remember once we were having trouble with the masking, with the type of masking we were getting. A team member went and asked them why they didn’t dump this supplier and get another supplier. The answer she got back was, ‘Well, Toyota is kind of like a family. If you have problems with someone, you don’t just throw them away. You try to work it out, find out why there’s something wrong, take countermeasures and take the extra trouble.’”(4) Toyota applies this policy to team members and employees as well, even when doing so is problematic for the company. Toyota has found great success, both in business and in dealing with these problems by considering their long term relationships before it’s short term problems. Putting the relationships it has internally and externally first, Toyota has become on of the largest automakers in the world.

"The strength of a family, like the strength of an army, is in its loyalty to each other." (5)

Individuals make up a family, but like members of a fraternity or citizens of a nation, they consciously give up a portion of what might otherwise be theirs for the benefit of all.


Objectively, humans are small and weak. Threatened by natural disaster, economic hardship, crime, war, famine, and many other factors, fear is present in all humans. We seek others, and none can be closer than those to which we are related. The security in knowing we do not have to face the world alone can lend strength to each of the members, creating a refuge.

“This image of a refuge from an impersonal world characterizes the family as a place of intimacy, love, and trust where individuals may escape the competition of demonizing forces in modern society. Christopher Lasch has named this image a “haven in a heartless world,” and described it as a glorification of private life made necessary by the deprivations experienced in the public world.”(6)

Despite society becoming civilized and complex in the modern age, the need for protection and strength has not diminished.

"Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family: Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one. You need one because you are human"(7)

Affection, Attention, and Appreciation

Humans have needs, and while they can be quantified and categorized by scientists and sociologists, most humans just feel them more than think about them. Being in an environment, be it work or home, where the members work together, look out for one another, and function for the whole foster positive psychological feelings and increase personal and unit confidence and morale.

Humans maintain the family structure because it is successful, it provides for all members, and creates commonality. While the reasons humans developed this way are discussed and theorized, the practical applications of putting family first can not be dismissed. A focused unit with a shared goal both validate the sacrifices of the individual, but also provide for each member.

(1) Paine, Thomas, Common Sense, 1776
(2) Garrison, Shawn, “Brian Smith’s ‘Family-like atmosphere’ helped the MU wrestling program reach new heights”, Columbia Missourian, December 11, 2007
(3) Mullin, Emily, “MedStar Health employees laud company’s ‘family atmosphere’”, Baltimore Business Journal, September 20, 2010
(4) Besser, Terry, Team Toyota, page 112, State University of New York Press, 1996
(5) Puzo, Mario, The Family, page 304 hardback, Regan Books, 2001
(6) Baca Zinn, Maxine & Eitzen, D. Stanley, Diversity in American families, Page 474, Harper & Row, 1987
(7) Howard, Jane, Families, page 234, Transaction

posted on Nov, 6 2010 @ 05:23 PM
One point that I find important is struggle
If we allow our children to be too dependant, even at an early age, and not expose them to the struggle of life then it may have devastating results, not only to your immediate family/surroundings but also to the general public.
So yes of course provide for your family, but let them know it's one man/woman for themselves and that every human on this earth is selfish and therefore they need to provide for themselves.

Case in point teenage pregnancies. If kids knew and understood the concept of struggle in real life then I believe they would really think about being extra serious getting pregnant, because they would realize the difficulty in surviving in such a setting. Teen pregnancies also have high rates of going on welfare, which of course is not good for the economy of the state/country.

I think ever father would love to teach his son to understand struggle and hard work and then watch him grow into a hard working successful man that provides for his family, and in turn will teach his son the same things.
Also every mother would love to see their daughter grow up to be a self-depending woman in somewhat of a male dominated world

If they want an allowance, make them work for it, let them know early on that nothing comes free in this world, or just do what everyone else does and let them believe in santa claus.

This is why it's important to understand that acting selfish as if your well being is more important, and in the end it's your family that will benefit from it the most.

My respected opponent speaks of cause and effect, I agree with the label of his post and it's importance, but I think it's the effect where we disagree upon.

posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 10:54 PM
I request a 24 hour extension.

Thank you

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 09:09 PM
The last position will be used to address the opposition's points put forward.

Libertarianism and Selfishness

“Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things.”(1)

This specifically applies to the relationship between free people and their governmental levels, also explained as a “basic natural rights doctrine.”(1) The power and sovereignty of each person will have minimal limitations placed on it by authoritarian forces. While this is a favorable position to many in the West, especially the United States of America, the philosophy does not specifically address the question at hand, but rather allows an individual to make these choices for themselves, unencumbered by overbearing regulations and/or restrictions.

The primary point is that individuals would freely choose to restrict themselves for a variety of reasons. Nothing in Libertarianism precludes putting family before the self, especially as an act of love and sacrifice. These ideals, as shown previously, are not uncommon in human society. In fact, it is fair to say that the voluntary giving and sacrificing for others, meaning without government force, is part and parcel with how Libertarianism could be effective in a practical application. The private and individual safety net of community, family, charity and kindness is the backbone that Libertarians believe could replace the Socialism of government redistribution by force.

“Indeed, the paleolibertarian argues that a fuller libertarianism would turn out to be the traditional family’s best friend; that without a welfare state or Social Security, traditional family arrangements will be more vitally needed, and thus more likely to stay strong.” (2)

Even beyond the traditional family, Libertarianism would increase the variety of family structures available for each person to choose from. Homosexuals, for example, would be allowed to legally join and adopt or raise children. Libertarianism seems more a friend to the family than a foe.

“Human reliance on learning over instinct allows us to progress beyond the limitations of our genetic programming, thus increasing the number of family structures available to us. Kinship relations and procreative unions, while they will remain one important basis for family structures, are no longer the only such basis. Yet most human societies have laws mandating only certain sorts of family structure, and forbidding others.”(3)

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Teaching your family to be self-dependent allows them to be ready for the world, therefore the mutually beneficial approach is to be selfish and to think for oneself.
Of course I am talking about a specific form of selfishness here, one that benefits everyone as opposed to me buying food for myself and let everyone else starve, no of course not, I am not on that extreme and neither are my opinions.

This statement has some truth to it, but it that effectively strengthens the Positive Position in this debate. An experiment would be to apply this to a family model to see how each member contributes and sacrifices, to what end, and why. In Family E, there is Father, Mother, Child M, and Child F where both children are below the age of suffrage. Father works and Mother does not, and they have decided that Father will increase hours at work to gain a promotion. Father reduces his work around the house to compensate for the extended hours put in at his place of employment.

Is Father being selfish and putting his personal well-being before the family? No, all the members are sharing in the sacrifices for the betterment of the whole. Father is spending more hours away from his family and children; most likely has an increased amount of stress and most likely is tired. Mother must increase the amount of work done around the house to compensate for Father’s reduction, in addition to seeing less of her husband. Child M and Child F will have to be more self-reliant and spend less quality time with both Mother and Father due to the increased workload.

The degree of sacrifice and goals for each family will differ, but the end result is that the family that works best works as a unit. Putting the family first means considering the needs and wants of the whole before those solely of the self.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
To understand our world is to look at society as a collection of people who only care about their own self-interests.

This statement might seem true on face value, but in fact humanity is more interwoven and interdependent than many would like to say. A man might write a book, but even if that book is written for profit, there stands a good chance there is a family benefiting from that money. More broadly, we can also take into account the benefit of education or entertainment the readers of the book gain. Humans do many things that, on the surface, might look selfish yet are not.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
If we allow our children to be too dependant, even at an early age, and not expose them to the struggle of life then it may have devastating results, not only to your immediate family/surroundings but also to the general public.

Exposing children to the realities of human society is really an entirely different discussion that warrants a separate and lengthy discussion. It is interesting to point out, however, that in taking the time and effort to instill values and education in one’s children is, in fact, giving of one’s own time and effort for the benefit of the family. Stronger and more successful children aid in furthering the family’s genetics. This is, quite literally, a excellent example of putting family before the self.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
So yes of course provide for your family, but let them know it's one man/woman for themselves and that every human on this earth is selfish and therefore they need to provide for themselves.

This is why it's important to understand that acting selfish as if your well being is more important, and in the end it's your family that will benefit from it the most.

These two statements contradict each other. Should one provide for one’s family, teach them about the world so that they might succeed, and help them grow as the first statement claims? Should one act “as if your well being is more important” as the second statement claims? In order to put the self first is to put that person in a superior position to that of other family members. Creating an argument where each member of a family has the impression of being most important and first in all things, one would be hard pressed not only to prove that, but also to find a functioning unit that encompasses all the beneficial properties of the family that sacrificed for the whole.

The resulting position of my opponent does not add up. It both strengthens the positive position and weakens the negative one. Pragmatism demands proof, logic, and documentation. The lack of such a foundation does not provide sufficient basis to build an argument.

Genetic, evolution, and social factors have been shown to conspire; creating a human proclivity, that when heeded in putting family first, produce stable and positive benefits.

(1) "Libertarianism" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010 ed.
(2) Doherty, Brian, "Libertarianism vs. the Family," Reason 18 Sept. 2007
(3) Long, Roderick T, "Beyond Pareiarchy: A Libertarian Model of the Family," Formulations Spring 1997

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 07:38 PM
Human society, in modern times, is complex and has matured through population and technological growth. The nexus, or means of connection, of nations and societies starts with the family unit, leading strong families to create strong communities, states, and then nations. The structure of the family, however, is not as important as the focus on it before the self in producing positive personal and family results. The very act of rearing children is sacrifice.

The furthering of one’s genetic line is an important disposition of humans. Genetically, it is in the line’s best interest for the individual to nurture and raise healthy offspring, even if it requires sacrifice on the part of the individual. As shown in the affirmative arguments, human proclivity towards altruism not only instills a genetic incentive in the family, but provides increased quality of life for the family and the self alike.

Altruism, the very act of putting others before the self, has been shown to be an instinctual trait in the human species. Being naturally helpful does not mean that we do not have a selfish side, but fostering sheer selfishness, an intellectual proposal, has not caused happiness and societal benefit. Being in a family and putting the family first is also not a suicide pact; taking care of the family as a whole helps to take care of the self.

The conclusion needs not be drawn out as the points made thus far have shown the strength and validity of the claim.

Humanities natural interdependency forms units, and while forces within might clash, the unified purpose outpaces the individual pieces. If the well being of one's family is a greater priority than the well being of one's self, you will naturally be taking care of yourself, and you won’t be alone in that endeavor.

Krazy Jethro

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 11:16 PM
Modern Academia has missed two posts and thus forfeits the debate. KrazyJethro wins by default and will advance to Round 2.

top topics


log in