I've been skimming this thread, and this seems like the most appropriate place for me to respond.

Ayn Rand had (and taught) a certain type of moral duty: "Never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser value"; in essence, have integrity -- do what is right.

Now I can't speak for you (though I can guess based on your descriptions of yourself), but I can speak for myself.

I value the potential of what other people can become (some more than others based on objective observation, etc...). Had I been in the same situation, I would have valued the possibility of that mother getting back onto her feet. I would have valued the prospect of her and her children being given hope in a benevolent universe by a stranger in the midst of a seemingly hopeless situation. I would have valued the prospect of what the children could have grown up to become if their sense of life could be impacted in a positive way. And there are likely a million other things I would have very genuinely (and I would argue, RATIONALLY) valued more (*far more*) than holding onto that little bit of money and time that was spent.

Therefore, had I (and if you value similar to me, had you) decided not to give them that time and money, it would be a breach of my value system -- it would be sacrificing a greater value (the multiple awesome potential opportunities in the lives of those people) for the sake of a lesser value (a little bit of cash and time). Therefore, the thought of not giving it to them would have given me a moral sense of guilt -- not because of an obligation I had to THEM, but because of the obligation I have to MYSELF -- to my values. I would have sensed (even subconsciously) that I was betraying my values, and therefore incurred a just guilt.

But THAT is the only proper way to think of such a situation. If the guilt stemmed from anything *other* than a compromise of your values -- and if your values were not objectively rational, then there would be a moral problem in your thinking, feeling, and acting out of the situation.

For what it's worth, not only can Christianity and Ayn Rand's morality be integrated, but they actually demand each other. Check out my blog: www.thechristianegoist.wordpress.com

Nope. I am currently in Texas; my next contract will be in the Bay Area. I have family from Arizona (Prescott and Sedona), and was married in Mesa. We have a lot of ties to that area.

are you in Phoenix? I feel an Objectivist club coming on..

Let's start with sacrifice and use it consistently in a philosophical sense.
1.sacrifice means when faced with options, you purposely choose that which gives you less objective value.
Had you been facing a key business importance or a family emergency to spend time with this individual and her family, then that would would philosophically have been a sacrifice. If you had time and resources, and you saw an opportunity to provide guidance that might have impacted this individual AND this something you are drawn to do, it is not a sacrifice.
Rand is clear on this.
2. investment does not mean sacrifice and not all investments "pay off."
3. We all make choices regarding raising our family, etc. (I don't mean etc lightly)
I chose to not pursue a career while raising a family. My husband and I discerned all available options and focused on the most important goals we had for our family. Choices are not sacrifices. They are trade-offs, opportunity costs.
I just want to clarify definitions in moving forward with the discussion, so I understand your points accurately.

That depends on how narrow the definition of "personal interest" is. If the definition only counts if it has some positive impact on the bottom-line of an accounting ledger, then this whole discussion is ludicrous, prima facie. Of course, in this case, the sacrifice is inherently negative. I invest something, and get nothing in return. Bad move.

If, on the other hand, the definition can include things which might have a negative financial impact, but have a positive impact psychologically or on a personal and/or emotional level, then there is something to talk about.

Personal development is a long-term program. You don't read a book and become a better person. All reading the book can possibly do is put you on a path of self-improvement. Reading more, investing more time and effort, focusing on doing things differently, all are long-term items. This is, actually, why most "personal development seminars" (or "leadership development seminars") fail. People assume that spending 3 - 4 hours with some dude on a Saturday will change their lives from then on. All it did was put a crossroads in front of them, and force them to take one path or the other.

My "investment" in that 32yo mulatto female with her two young children only placed the fork in the road for her. The choice of her taking the new route was hers, and hers alone. There is zero positive impact on my bottom line from that investment. It cost me time; it cost me money; it cost me resources I had in my suburban, and I got nothing tangible from it. From a financial perspective, that was a bad decision.

Parents sacrifice for their children, and that makes them better parents, better people -- and better grandparents. It could be easily argued that this "sacrifice" is in the family's self-interest, it might not be in the *individual's* self-interest. Where do you draw that line?

There are jobs I did take, or did not take, based on the impact that position or location would have on my children. Today, with five grown, married children, I am seeing the fruits of those sacrifices in the lives of new families.

So, again, I have to come back to the definition of "personal interests." The more narrowly it is defined, the more accurate your comment is. The more widely it is defined, I believe, the less accurate.

do you agree that "sacrificing personal interests" is inherently a negative if one has sacrificed an important goal? one's immediate emotional response to the sacrifice is irrelevant if the long term gain of personal interests has been self-compromised

I am honest enough to understand it is your opinion; I am logical and intelligent enough to see its flaws.

I could cite a number of non-religious based sociology studies showing how being charitable to others and sacrificing personal interests to others makes people feel better and happier. I could show a number of non-religious based leadership studies showing the same thing. Your logic fails in actual empirical studies.

Furthermore, not all religious claims are "mystical," and darn few of them are truly irrational.

Your fundamental contradiction is accepting mystical claims without evidence. It is a fundamentally arational if not irrational position and a flat out contradiction. You cannot both accept a rational ethics and hold irrational fundamental beliefs and irrational ethical edicts by religious fiat.

Hopefully you are honest enough to understand this in not bashing.

ok then. :) would you say your tank fills faster if the person you helped succeed was a long shot? I'm just curious if you are able to identify those who have seen you as a mentor without directly tasking you to help them? The reason I ask is I think many would be sespecially rewarded by the success of their efforts with a "long shot" and maybe not even recognize they were mentoring any number of individuals who are rising stars and learning without direct intervention.

BTW: This time of year in Phoenix, they say "...yea, but it's a *dry* heat..."

As a recovering alcoholic, I am quite familiar with the twelve steps and twelve traditions of which you speak. They are valuable, and can truly stand as a firm foundation upon which any honorable person can build a life.

There are folks who will screw anyone they can. They steal from the poor and elderly. Forget them. There are far more folks who will give you the shirt off their backs to help. I'll bet some are even AR fans... ;-)

I decide on who using completely personal reasons. They have a certain "something" -- in French they say "je ne sais quoi." If they respond positively, we move on; if not, we are still friends.

No, I do not think you misunderstood. It does deviate from the others. That is probably why Gary did not include it (or some of the others I could list).

I have done leadership seminars where this book was the topic. I have had participants and peers who read the book, understood the points, and took the test. They found that some of the items were nice, but none of them really "fit."

For me, my love tank can get filled with "that kind" of physical touch (obviously from my wife, thank you very much...), or you can do something nice for me, and I'll feel loved. Gifts are good; spending time talking and working with me is really nice; genuine expressions and compliments go a long way.

But what fills my tank fastest? Seeing someone I helped succeed -- truly succeed! They don't even have to make any kind of public pronouncement that they "owe it all to me." In fact, I'd almost rather they didn't. Just seeing the people I poured some of my effort, love, concern, etc into turn their life around and become successful makes my little heart go pitter-pat!

And that, my friend, is not on Gary's list.

thanks. this is interesting. you get to meander on your own post if you want to.
power and control seems to deviate from the other five. and seems kinda negative. maybe I'm misunderstanding.

The five love languages Gary Chapman describes in his book are:
1) Words of Affirmation: This language uses words to affirm other people.
2) Quality Time: This language is all about giving the other person your time and/or undivided attention.
3) Gifts: For some people, what makes them feel most loved is to receive a gift.
4) Acts of Service: For these people, actions speak louder than words.
5) Physical Touch: To this person, nothing speaks more deeply than (appropriate) touch.

I see the logic in his groupings. They are all something a spouse or friend can give to another, freely, to help build them up, emotionally.

He missed some, but they are not within the power of one individual to give to another, they must be taken. The main one I see is "Power and Control." But now we are jumping off into a mired mass of topics totally off the subject.

Ayn Rand was very much about affirmation. Words mattered with her. Repeating the words all the time, dilute their meaning. Or apologizing all the time without the underlying behavior being worked on is useless. same with saying I love you 50 times a day when the relationship is at cross purposes. One has to have shared goals and dreams. and work on them. All the other stuff is icing. I'm not saying it's not nice, but -for example, if my husband's goals worked against mine yet he gave me wonderful gifts of jewelry, we're not speaking the same "love language.' My tank is filled by specific shared goals that are nurtured and accomplished and new ones created-together. which of the five do I fit into? lol

After being screwed over by someone “doing me a favor” I concluded “You can not do anyone a favor unless they ask you to.”
What I also try to follow is “Live and let live” which leads to “Attraction not promotion” This is where it could get sticky when it comes to spreading the word. I follow the twelve step principals, which does not come in conflict with any religion; by design. By practicing these principals in all my affairs, I am living a philosophy; which led me here as the philosophies are similar. Since you asked (otherwise I wouldn’t say anything [live and let live, attraction not promotion] I’d suggest you read them, it’ll take 5 minutes. It’s worked for me 30 years this October (God [as I understand him] willing). The sixth word in the first step can be replaced by anything, the rest is universal. You know what they say in New York this time of year “It’s not the heat it’s the humility” I wish you the best.

Didn't Hank Reardon write a $100,000 check to his brother-in-law for an environmental cause?

He didn't support the cause, or like his brother-in-law, but it made his life easier (read: self interest)..

"thugs" would be about the best word I could use to describe them...

Actually, both yes and no.

In another reply, you said "sometimes religious people have a hard time separating what they really WANT to do from what they think they SHOULD do."

I had a lot on my mind and was tired. The "last thing I wanted to do" was spend time and money on some total strangers. But I'm a grandpa -- and seeing two young children going to bed in the back seat of a dirty car hungry just pulled at me. How could I walk away from that?

It was, really, a form of "guilt" that made me take the first step.

The smallest bill I had in my wallet would easily take care of their needs at the moment.

I made the first step not knowing the mother would listen to me, or that I would even talk to her seriously.

Sitting there in the Denny's with those two faces looking at me in excited anticipation of more pancakes and sausage than they could possibly eat made me take the next step -- to sit down beside the woman and start asking her what went wrong.

It was not a "guilt free" deal. Guilt moved me to action; a feeling that I had a "moral duty" to help those two children pushed me to do something truly stupid.

I, personally, could not have eaten dinner or slept that night if I had simply driven away. Knowing there were people who did so made me wonder at just how callous our society has become.

Like I said, the smallest bill I had in my wallet (a $50) could have fed them. I could have simply tossed it in the window, said "go feed the kids" and left. That would have "satisfied" the situation -- but not what I felt was my moral duty. I know, "moral duty" is anathema to AR, especially in this context.

As I said in another post, perhaps AR felt like she had to be so firm and unwavering in her statements in order to have her point understood. Perhaps if she was standing there instead of me that she would have done the same thing, and for the same reasons. I'd like to think so.

I wasn't doubting LS. Although I don't know her, it wasn't really *her* I was speaking about. It was the concept that people who seek approval from others are a problem.

There are at least five "love languages." (see The Five Love Languages, by Gary Chapman). I actually think he missed at least two, but that's just me. Each person has a core "need" which, when expressed by others, "fills their love tank." One of those is "words of affirmation." People telling you, verbally, how they appreciate what you did and your impact in their life. It is a common trait.

Some folks couldn't care less. Say "thanks," don't say it, no difference. Their "love tank" is filled differently. I have a lodge brother whose wife's love language is quality time. Say what he'd like, she only feels loved when he spends time with her. Sitting in the living room, each reading their books, makes her feel more loved than jewelry.

From LS's description, it simply appears AR doesn't like folks whose love language is words of affirmation. I guess that wasn't one of her's, so she considered it un-valuable, and, it appears, even condemned it.

Granted, I have not ready ANY of Fountainhead, so I am working entirely off of LS's description. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

I do a "piss poor job of explaining" things from time to time. That is to be expected in this kind of communications device. That doesn't mean you have to leave.

In another spot, I was passed this reference: "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. (Playboy, March 1964)"

It does cast a slightly different light on it. I guess she is simply saying charity is okay under certain circumstances. There were other quotes on the same page which made her look less, well, charitable (meaning socially nice and accommodating), and were not as germane to the discussion, so I left them out.

Perhaps the issue was she had to take such a hard-line stand in order to think her message would be heard that many of the quotes, taken out of context, just don't sound that "nice."

Wrong.

His goal was to make the finest steel ever known to man: Rearden steel.

Why? Because it was his dream, and he was able to do this.

And he did...on page 1.

I accept your acknowledgement.