This is a very challenging ethical dilemma. Hank Rearden leaving Lillian despite his prior oath of "until death do us part" is fundamentally different than this decision because Lillian was still capable of making decisions for herself.

Perhaps he did stay out of guilt over the shock treatments, but I would have stayed regardless. I am dealing with a father with rather severe Alzheimer's disease. He provided value to me, not only during my childhood, but with a sizable inheritance when he passes on. I am providing value back to him now. Your grandfather likely saw dealing with your grandmother in the same way. I know I would do so with any immediate family member.

I know I am not an Objectivist, but with any such situation, you must ask yourself, "Can I live with myself and my decision?" The answer to that will guide you to the ethically correct answer. If Objectivism leads you to a different answer, then you and Objectivism are in conflict.

Guilt can be very powerful. You have to ask yourself whether your guilt was properly earned whether intentional or not (ex. You commit a vehicular homicide.), or whether someone is trying to make you feel guilty. In that event, you ought to reject such guilt completely. In your grandfather's case, he should not have felt guilty. He did the best he could under the circumstances. Nonetheless, he probably assessed that staying with your grandmother was in his best interest.

Here is a related question..

Is it truly altruistic if you are repaying perceived past benefits from them? Or rather, is it "balancing the books" in your own view?

Obligation, of Free Will, as in a marriage vow, or a personal commitment...is not altruistic...it's a choice of conscience, keeping one's word or a sense of wanting to because of the value the relationship had.
No doubt there was some guilt felt by your grandad...it's what Conscious humans feel in these situations but it wasn't his fault and he could not of known. But I will tell you this...it wore away at him and likely shortened his life.

Different circumstances in My Dads case but I could see that unearned guilt, shortened his life.

He could have walked away...but the unearned guilt would have followed him.

Is it possible to be an objectivist and love someone?

I would say, that if they loved one another,t hen likely, even IF it were a "burden" on him, it was one he freely accepted. If you love someone, I mean REALLY love someone, then regardless of the burden, it's worth it.

I guess the only way to truly know what was in your grandfather's mind, and how he felt, isn't to assume how he must have felt, but ask him and KNOW. Since that is no longer possible, trying to second-guess his decision to stand by his wife during some tough times is nothing more than an exercise in futility, and likely to cause personal grief saying "What if he had or hadn't, and damn him or her for his suffering".

I DO know such "baying at the moon" exercises that are impossible to complete are not objective in the least. :-) That he DIDN'T leave... says a lot, both about his intentions, his feelings, and his dedication to someone he loved deeply.

And honestly - I don't think Objectivism has a say in it one way or the other.

He made the best decision he knew. Why should he feel guilty about that? He was committed to his wife, even though the decision didn't turn out well. Why should he then feel guilt or think he should leave her, when every intention was to help his wife? He loved her before the treatment, and he loved her after the treatment, in spite of the outcome. Guilt had nothing to do with it. He was a man of his word - 'til death.

Love is a tricky and abiding thing. absent love (not including love for the person she once was) there would be no point. We could quibble on the definition of love. but to me it includes respect and shared joy. It is a balm during rough patches and it is pure energy during happy times. In old age, I think it is implicit that you shoulder the burdens of one another as you did when you were younger and it was "easier" If the love is not there(my definition) then you need to move on. ugh to bad medical decisions and lousy technology

It appears your grandmother followed medical advice, as did your grandfather. He was honoring his original mutual commitment, not altruism. That would be giving something for nothing and making the receiver weaker. I am sure in your grandparents' case, they continued to draw mutual emotional benefits. My dad stayed with my mom, even though she was an alcoholic and addict. He should have left, but he enabled her, making for a horrible family situation for all. When she died, I asked why he did not commit her, he said he could not do it. When I became an adult a few years later, I understood, she never accepted she needed help, and forcing her to have it would not have stuck. I still think he should have stopped enabling her, he robbed her of facing her issues and robbed himself of years of his life.

Marriage is a commitment to join and create a mutual future - regardless of the unknowns. But it is only adherence to one's original commitment in the face of challenges that proves the commitment true.

The real question is not altruism vs personal responsibility. The question is whether one loves the other enough to overcome the challenges. It appears your grandfather loved his wife and I salute him for his integrity.

Great question. I, personally, would stay to take care of my wife in that situation. If she had done something to herself (like drugs or heavy drinking against my requests) - no.

Modern medicine is interesting. We have made great advances. Yet, still, we are really stupid in some areas. I have a friend who is now going through what I guess is a "toned-down" version of electro shock. She says she fells better. She was forever depressed about her son basically disowning her and couldn't dig herself out of it. Funny thing...she still drones on about her son, but just doesn't burst into tears each time. Go figure.

From this story it sounds like she would have need care all her life regardless of whether her breakdown went untreated or they used the accepted treatment of the time. In hindsight, though, we know the electric shock was possibly as bad as what they were trying to treat, and more effective treatments were coming.

Hearing the story makes me feel blessed that no one in my immediate family has had a serious health problem.

I don't see your grandfather staying with your grandmother as altruism. He loved her and stood by her. He acted on the best advice of the doctors of the time, and acting on what he thought was her best interest, which would also have been in his best interest. He should not have felt guilty about the results (do you know that he did?). That was a ration choice he made. Would he have lived longer had he not cared for her? Perhaps. Would he have felt guilty for leaving? Who knows. She did nothing intentionally to undermine him, or act against him. In jbrenners comparison to Hank and Lillian; Lillian constantly was working against and undermining Hank. His guilt should have been for allowing her to do it to him.

As an Objectivist, I would not say he "should" have left.

In fact, if I were in his situation, I would certainly stay. Honor and Love are 2 of my highest values. I respect and admire your grandfather for his choice.

The typical marriage vows say the couple promises to stay together in such a scenario. Maybe the question is is such a promise consistent with Objectivism. I think the answer is yes, but it's a question for someone more knowledgeable about Objectivism than I am.

Hello richrobinson,
Under such circumstances if one feels good/better about what they are doing is that not payment?
Is it a fair exchange? That is for them to decide; is it not?
"They seemed happy in their own way.."
Regards,
O.A.

Definitions are often altered by socialists to coerce behavior that is destructive. Altruism is often portrayed as the ultimate achievement for human beings by destroying ones own interests to promote the 'happiness' of the indolent masses who desire success without effort. It is not self destructive to care for those who through no fault or choice of their own become unable or less able to care for themselves. Two of my sisters died from Lou Gehrig's disease. In both instances the family gathered around them and gave of their time to care for them as they declined in the ability to care for themselves. Prior to the illness both had been active and helped others in the family. While it seems to be a viable objectivist we need to always be gainfully employed and providing for ourselves some circumstances are not chosen. Without the help of the family going alone would have been an almost impossible task. I would help those in circumstances not chosen by the 'victim'. I would not give time or money to someone who by use of drugs and or violence had destroyed their lives and others. I evaluate the decision based on information of the lives I am assisting. I would not give aid to someone who chooses to live without effort.

Is there such a thing as an old fashioned Objectivist? I believe in love. I think it is real. There are many parts to it such as admiration, heroism, etc. In the past, a "nervous breakdown" was a catch-all for any mental or emotional problem. It might have been physical and the part of the brain that got fried destroyed the problem and caused another. In any case, if love was involved it is very possible that grandpa took care of his loved one. A selfless act? Yes if it was guilt. However if it was because of love, the element of selfishness was dominant since he couldn't imagine life without him doing everything he could for her.

It is impossible to answer such a question from outside. If you love someone utterly and something horrible happens that diminishes them then your rational values may lead you to take care of them. There is no pat answer from outside the situation. It is not altruism or sacrifice as long as one still values the person more than other possibilities. Besides it is difficult to know whether the condition in this case will eventually become more as it was before. It would be a hard call.

I have partially been there. I wasn't married but someone I dearly loved and had nearly married some years before contracted cancer. I moved him into my house and carried for him as he battled it and ultimately lost. It was a very difficult think and it cost me a a lot. However the value he represented to me as against the serious disvalue to me of him facing this alone was a sufficient value.

Mental illness is very difficult for a family. Your grandfather sounds like a kind and loving man. Remember the vows of "To care for in sickness and health."
If your grandmother had been abandoned she would be a ward of the state. Your grandfather's actions were an act of personal responsibility. Objectivism is all about personal reponsibility.

Keeping in mind that this is what I think I would do...having not, yet, been placed in such a situation:

I believe that I would stay with my wife, if only because I believe that she would do the same for me, if the tables were turned. There is nothing altruistic about "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

I would question the initial decision. Beyond that, he had a basic agreement with her--a covenant. Marriage is a contract. I'm sure we all want to honor our contracts--at least those we freely enter into.

That said, I know from my own medical training that electroconvulsive therapy was one of the most-abused treatments known to psychiatry in that day. Today they shock one lobe only (not both) and restrict the treatment to very special cases.

It would have been better, I say, to "have it out" and face--squarely--the cause of those mood swings. Something was going on in her life with which she never came to grips. You can't shock it away, or wash it out with booze or dope. (Even "properly prescribed" major and minor tranquilizers, in my semi-pro opinion, are still "dope.")

I'm divorced from an insecure lady who had very incompatible issues. Broke my heart at the time but I'm way past over it.
Still, I'm very family firstish. (Me dino just made up a word)
I'm always there for my grown kids.
I look out for a brother on the other side of Birmingham and he looks out for me.
It's a genetic thing, I suppose, to be somewhat clannish.
Heck, I've even helped out my ex (the mama of a kid) from time to time. Definitely don't want her back, though.

why do you assume he did not have a fulfilling life.
when it comes to medical decisions we have to depend upon the medical professionals to guide us, so that was why he made the decision as he did. he did what he had too. he was and is otherwise not alone in doing as he did, may mates stay with a mate in similar medical circumstances. altruism has nothing to do with his actions and i doubt that he even gave thought to doing differently.

Simple answer: if he loved his wife, then he was not sacrificing himself to take care of her; therefore he did the right thing. The decision should not have anything to do with the fact he had a marriage contract (as per Temlakos).