Catholics in particular have to include forms of fruitfulness that don’t involve biological children in what it means to lead a full and flourishing life. Cloistered, celibate religious lay down their lives for the sake of a deep relationship with God and interceding for the world.
Children are a sign of living generously, making one’s life a gift to others. And a culture with declining marriage and fertility raises questions about how we’re preparing to see our lives as not only our own. But it’s not fair or accurate to tag any particular person without children as selfish or disconnected from the future.
FWIW, Akhil Amar recently argued in his constitutional history ("The Words That Made Us") that George Washington was more significant than both Hamilton and Madison in the motivating the structure of the Constitution and should properly be seen as the father of the constitution.. He argues that Madison's influence is overrated, shown by the fact that he lost on almost all of the distinctive thins he argued for. And while Hamilton was important, Amar argues that he was a catspaw of sorts for Washington, putting forward a geostrategic vision of strong state necessary for America to be successful, a vision for which Washington was viewed as the primary proponent. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/context-and-consequences-on-akhil-reed-amars-the-words-that-made-us/
That's interesting. I haven't read the book. I certainly agree that Washington was a crucial advocate of a strong executive, and that he had a uniquely powerful voice in the early republic. I do think that part of what made his voice so powerful, though, was how infrequently he used it.
"Rather, my point is that by the standards that take the Mongol conqueror as the exemplar of greatness, and therefore the paragon both of immortal fame and of enduring legacy, it’s not obvious that Washington should be considered great at all. And yet he obviously was; indeed one could argue that he was the greater of the two men, with the more substantial legacy."
Very interesting article. I find the above statement to be a bit short-sighted though. We are still talking about Genghis Khan 800 years after his death. It has only been 200 years since Washington's demise. Let's see who is still talking about Washington 600 years from now. Who knows if America will still be a great power at that point ... or if it will even exist.
I see two fundamental points your analysis gets wrong. The rest of the article is downstream of these errors. First, you reduce the desire for children to the “selfish gene.” You describe the virtue of George Washington, but seem to dismiss the notion that parenthood is a virtue. It is actually virtuous to be a parent. Where you see something selfish, I think most people see the creation of life and the self-sacrifice that entails to be decidedly unselfish. We are created and ordered towards life, and so fulfilling that calling is virtuous.
The second point you get wrong is a basic category error. Where you point out the virtue of childless George Washington as an individual, Vance is calling out “childless cat ladies” as a group. There’s no historical evidence that Washington actively chose not to have kids. Rather, historians believe he was simply infertile. That’s wholly different than a belief system in which entire swaths of women (and men) either de-prioritize having children in favor of careers, or actively choose not to have kids. Vance isn’t saying that childless people cannot be virtuous, especially those who wanted children but were unable to conceive or never managed to get married. Rather, he’s saying choosing to not have kids is unvirtuous. Given that a key feature of our design is procreation, it’s no wonder that studies are suggesting that the cohort to which this group of childless by choice overwhelmingly belongs (Progressives) face higher rates of mental health struggles and feel unfulfilled in their lives.
Catholics in particular have to include forms of fruitfulness that don’t involve biological children in what it means to lead a full and flourishing life. Cloistered, celibate religious lay down their lives for the sake of a deep relationship with God and interceding for the world.
Children are a sign of living generously, making one’s life a gift to others. And a culture with declining marriage and fertility raises questions about how we’re preparing to see our lives as not only our own. But it’s not fair or accurate to tag any particular person without children as selfish or disconnected from the future.
FWIW, Akhil Amar recently argued in his constitutional history ("The Words That Made Us") that George Washington was more significant than both Hamilton and Madison in the motivating the structure of the Constitution and should properly be seen as the father of the constitution.. He argues that Madison's influence is overrated, shown by the fact that he lost on almost all of the distinctive thins he argued for. And while Hamilton was important, Amar argues that he was a catspaw of sorts for Washington, putting forward a geostrategic vision of strong state necessary for America to be successful, a vision for which Washington was viewed as the primary proponent. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/context-and-consequences-on-akhil-reed-amars-the-words-that-made-us/
That's interesting. I haven't read the book. I certainly agree that Washington was a crucial advocate of a strong executive, and that he had a uniquely powerful voice in the early republic. I do think that part of what made his voice so powerful, though, was how infrequently he used it.
Thanks, Noah, and good to hear from you :)
"Rather, my point is that by the standards that take the Mongol conqueror as the exemplar of greatness, and therefore the paragon both of immortal fame and of enduring legacy, it’s not obvious that Washington should be considered great at all. And yet he obviously was; indeed one could argue that he was the greater of the two men, with the more substantial legacy."
Very interesting article. I find the above statement to be a bit short-sighted though. We are still talking about Genghis Khan 800 years after his death. It has only been 200 years since Washington's demise. Let's see who is still talking about Washington 600 years from now. Who knows if America will still be a great power at that point ... or if it will even exist.
I see two fundamental points your analysis gets wrong. The rest of the article is downstream of these errors. First, you reduce the desire for children to the “selfish gene.” You describe the virtue of George Washington, but seem to dismiss the notion that parenthood is a virtue. It is actually virtuous to be a parent. Where you see something selfish, I think most people see the creation of life and the self-sacrifice that entails to be decidedly unselfish. We are created and ordered towards life, and so fulfilling that calling is virtuous.
The second point you get wrong is a basic category error. Where you point out the virtue of childless George Washington as an individual, Vance is calling out “childless cat ladies” as a group. There’s no historical evidence that Washington actively chose not to have kids. Rather, historians believe he was simply infertile. That’s wholly different than a belief system in which entire swaths of women (and men) either de-prioritize having children in favor of careers, or actively choose not to have kids. Vance isn’t saying that childless people cannot be virtuous, especially those who wanted children but were unable to conceive or never managed to get married. Rather, he’s saying choosing to not have kids is unvirtuous. Given that a key feature of our design is procreation, it’s no wonder that studies are suggesting that the cohort to which this group of childless by choice overwhelmingly belongs (Progressives) face higher rates of mental health struggles and feel unfulfilled in their lives.
Ain't that at some level r-strategy vs. K-strategy?
They should really teach Isaiah 56 in Sunday school…