How far does "live for the sake of another man" go?
I'm wondering something after watching the movie and (almost done) reading the book. How far does this "live for the sake of another man" go? Is it possible that the gulch has gone from one extreme to another? Have we gone from "It's your job to provide me with food" to "Sure you can borrow a cup of sugar, that'll be 50 cents." Aren't there shades of gray in between? Are favors not allowed at all? Is volunteering your time not only unexpected, but actually frowned upon? If someone asks me to borrow some milk because it's Sunday night and the stores are closed, I would give it to him, under the expectation that I will need his help someday. Perhaps for example, he is a car mechanic and one day he'll find me stranded with a dead battery. If it's really a close-knit community, I think that karma and the possibility that someday you will need something from them, does create a form of self-interest in doing that favor because someday you'll need them. I'm not living my life for his sake, I'm voluntarily doing what I can to make a better world in the expectation that the favor will be returned, or at the very least paid forward.
Also, if all residents must take the oath separately, does that include children and infants? What about providing sustenance for a spouse or children? Is it expected that once a child nears adulthood, that they do start earning their keep at least in some small way? I'm fairly certain that a striker would not, for example, charge rent to his underage child, but based on the rules Galt states in the book, I don't see any room to accommodate that.
What do you all think?
Also, if all residents must take the oath separately, does that include children and infants? What about providing sustenance for a spouse or children? Is it expected that once a child nears adulthood, that they do start earning their keep at least in some small way? I'm fairly certain that a striker would not, for example, charge rent to his underage child, but based on the rules Galt states in the book, I don't see any room to accommodate that.
What do you all think?
I reserve the right to help whoever I wish in what ever manner that I wish. Their is no prohibition against helping one another. The vow is that you will not FORCE anyone to do so.
I owe you nothing and you don't owe me anything. But, for me anyway, love is an inherent part of our human nature, so loving and taking care of a spouse, child, friend etc is as natural as can be. I don't need nor demand any payback for my caring about others that I choose to care about.
I suggest that you go for whatever it is you want to be generous about and be proud.
Mine may be only one voice but hope that helps.
However, I would never feel OBLIGATED to perform any sort of favor. That is where "living for another" comes in. No one - not even my husband - has the right to demand any sort of favor from me, and demanding the favor is a sure-fire way to make certain it doesn't happen. We each treat the other that way.
My children are adults now. When they were dependent, of course they could demand that I do my job of rearing them. I imposed that obligation upon myself by conceiving them. Now that they are adults, though, we work together in a friendly manner, but with mutual respect.
We are social animals, and as such, our success depends on our support of others in the pack, who have the liberty of aiding us in time of need. Setting the example is never a bad choice.
With respect to providing sustenance for a spouse and/or children, that is another subject. Newborns are utterly helpless. When a couple decides to have children, they take on the responsibility of caring for, feeding, training and even loving them from birth. This is not a decision to be taken lightly; too many parents are unworthy because of their gross neglect. Meanwhile, caring for a spouse implies the spouse is unable to take care of themselves (age, senility, disability, surgery, etc.). It would be quite callous to just say, "Good Luck!" to a husband/wife who came home from a spinal surgery, expecting them to be ready to self-sustain immediately. I take care of my wife, because she is unable to. My decision.
If one comes to another to borrow sugar, the act of borrowing would not constitute a purchase then thus no money would exchange. However, if the neighbor approaches and says, "May I buy a cup of sugar?" the expectation of money exchange is possible.
Even the residents of the Gulch didn't always negotiate for money, but helped each other voluntarily. The help must be offered, not expected.
My beef is when philanthropy is expected or legislated. This leads to the disasters we have today.
Worshiping a ruler such as Kim Jong-un is.
Rule 1:. No Coercion.
Rule 2: The right to say no to anyone about anything.
Rule 3: Mind Your Own Business (MYOB)
At first it seems either too simple or too ironclad. Think about it. Run a few thought experiments.
That's the beauty of Objectivism and it is also what drives the philosophy professors nuts.There is nothing to endlessly extrapolate, with minute ideas and circumstances to ponder and dissect and .and to split into a hundred possibilities. Rand has done all that for you. Use this or her standing on one leg exposition and you've got it. Need foundational detail? Lots of polemics and books that illustrate how the philosophy evolved. For the itellectual giants who want to determine every little detail of how every philosophy works when applied to every conceinable situation, I recommend quantum physics, particularly a way to explain why the big bang theory is nonsense.I've always advocated the K.I.S.S. method. (Keep It Simple,Stupid)
Although much of the population seems to advocate, Keep It Stupid, Simple.
ocess need to mature.
Are favors not allowed at all?
You topic is very apt and a common, unjustified, criticism of Objectivism.
Your question is a good one to ask. Hopefully our answers will put you at ease. You don't need to be a selfish jackass to be in Galt's Gulch. Quite the contrary.
volves an actual sacrifice of time and attention; taking a significant risk of failing an exam in the subject of one's chosen career, etc., make a difference).
Keep in mind that many strikers, like John Galt, lived a minimalist lifestyle, to keep the looters away. If I only kept enough sugar on hand, to last me from one month to the next, I might expect some form of payment for that cup of sugar, as it would be a valuable commodity to me. Since we always keep several pounds on hand, and it's commonly available, we're much more generous with it.
Sure, I've done plenty of favors for people, but I've always received some benefit, even if it's just the good feeling that goes along with the favor. I've tutored dozens on getting their ham radio license, with no chance of financial gain, because I want to share my hobby. Now, if I were instructing people on how to obtain their commercial radio license, I would charge for it, because that license could provide an income for someone, possibly, a competitor.
The subject of families is addressed in the book, as well. As Galt explains to Dagny, spouses offer tangible benefits to a given striker, which take the place of monetary considerations. Children, likewise, offer a number of tangible benefits to their parents...otherwise, why would we keep having them? So long as the individual maintains complete responsibility in the care and maintenance of his family, everything works and no man has to live for the sake of another.
Lastly, charity was not adequately addressed, in the book, in my mind. However, in the movie, John Galt explains his take on charitable contributions and I agree, wholeheartedly, with the opinion he expresses...that charitable giving should be on "his" terms and not expected of anybody.
Does that help?
If you are not sacrificing values - yielding a net loss of value, than helping others is perfectly moral.
Just be sure you are not acting out of duty as suggested by those receiving your rewards.
One approach is in the story,
And Then There Were None, by Eric Frank Russell
www.abelard.org/e-f-russell/e_f_russe...
As for building a just and benevolent society in which each individual can live a happy, productive and fulfilling life, mutual respect and benevolence is the investment one makes for non-sacrificial relationships. Not living "for the sake" of another does not require cold indifference and rejection of everyone else. One's own self-interest is best served by maintaining principles of voluntary action, freedom of choice of association--in fact, the freedoms our Constitution enshrines. That freedom includes the right to refuse being exploited by moochers and looters and their political enablers.
It is when benevolence becomes distorted into mandatory service ("altruism") because some people think exploiting others is OK, and the force of government is put behind those demands, that a free society devolves into dictatorship and evil. It's sad how many people are seduced by the notion that those who have more should have their excess taken by force to give to those who have less.
Envy-driven legislation should never have been instituted, but there it is. Some are made to live for the sake of others. Hence the oath to reject that moribund belief.
On the obverse side of that coin, perhaps the neighbor says to not bother returning the milk he may need some sugar some time, then one is released from the first duty and entered into a different duty. But when one party tries to take advantage then that party expects another to live for them.
But volunteering is the very essence of objectivism. You volunteer to give your labor to another and they in turn volunteer to give you something in return. That return could be pictures of dead presidents or in today's world an electronic transfer with the appropriate shares dispensed to the appropriate claimants.
Those claimants are not asking but demanding that you live a certain share of your life for them but that is ok?
Before an oath can be enforced, the party taking must fully understand the oath and the penalties of not keeping the oath, the age of consciousness which varies person to person but usually prescribed by statutes to either 18 or 21.
But it's the parent's house. If they are providing food, clothing and shelter then one owes them a duty. If only being the maid and cleaning up. If one has a job, then contributions toward food and expenses would be appropriate. Otherwise you are demanding another live for you.
Do you not remember Dagny's crash and her staying with John?