How far does "live for the sake of another man" go?

Posted by $ servo75 5 years, 7 months ago to Ask the Gulch
34 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 5 years, 7 months ago
    Well, my take on that is quite different.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ gharkness 5 years, 7 months ago
      No, you are not the only voice. I do favors all the time, but always - always, I get something back for it. Sometimes it's something as small as a smile, and sometimes it's the lifelong love of my spouse.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years, 7 months ago
      BINGO! It's all about freedom of choice. I help others because it rewards me with a sense of achievement and proof of my personal success. I've made it in terms of my personal well being and comfort, and the time, energy, and wealth I have created in excess is best used to make it possible for others do the same.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dansail 5 years, 7 months ago
    I believe it is up to the individual to decide to what extent they will interact. I personally believe that the oath is a license for each person to decide the meaning of 'living for the sake of another man'. The oath won't mean a thing for children until they can make adult decisions for themselves, perhaps as early as 12 and as late as 25 (depending on maturity).

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 7 months ago
    Helping somebody out of a jam is not "living for the sake of another man."
    Worshiping a ruler such as Kim Jong-un is.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 7 months ago
      Yes that's what I thought, but I guess what partially triggered my thought was John having to rent a car from his friend. But I see the difference now that this is an ordinary business transaction, the other is just "something someone does for others." If John had simply borrowed the car, it would have been a one-sided relationship... unless Midas needed the occasional Physics lesson LOL.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 5 years, 7 months ago
    This will require both thought and imagination. There are only three rules needed to implement Objectivism..
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 5 years, 7 months ago
    I think if you read The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand, you might get a better understanding of all of this. When you do something for a friend or a loved one it is not a sacrifice. You are not giving up something of great value for something that is not important to you. There are no contradictions if you are sure what your values are. Life, to me, is about joy. The joy of living. And helping friends and taking good care of your family is part of that joy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by IAMGROOT 5 years, 7 months ago
    I think the rub here is that self sacrifice of any kind for its own sake is NOT a virtue. Any assistance rendered should be based on the value the helper has for the helped. In my case, I have helped individuals I can see working to help themselves and who just need a little shot in the arm. I am not an altruist and never give money to panhandlers (standing on a streetcorner expecting handouts is not helping yourself, well, maybe it is. LOL! I digress.). Anyway, that's my take on it which is somewhat out of the context of the story.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 5 years, 7 months ago
    As to a "striker" "charg[ing] rent to his underage child", if the child is underage, sheltering him remains a parental responsibility. See The Objectivist Newsletter, Intellectual Ammunition Dept. But the idea of not living for others does not prohibit neighborliness, to the extent that one can afford it. One is not morally obligated to just hand over things without question; but one is not obligated to just give in to others' demands for his help. (And by "afford" I do not just mean financially afford; things such as whether it in-
    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).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Radio_Randy 5 years, 7 months ago
    The book is, actually, explicit in some of the areas you are asking about. It may take more than one reading, to truly grasp the concepts Ayn Rand wanted us to garner from the book (I've completed my 4th, to date).

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 5 years, 7 months ago
    Self-sacrifice is the issue here.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 5 years, 7 months ago
    I am amazed that this question comes up. It is not that it is not allowed to assist others depending upon how the situation is assessed and the individual decides if he wants to or is capable. It is the realization that another person cannot demand my life or insist that I have nothing until he determines my value and allows me to either keep part of what I have created or give me something stolen from others. Extending this to children is absurd and seems an attempt to nullify objectivism. Lending or giving something to someone who is temporarily without is not a demand. After a neighbors home is destroyed by nature offering assistance or lodging is laudable, the neighbor demanding it at your extinction is not.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 5 years, 7 months ago
    NEED does not equal OBLIGATION, it simply offers options and choices. Whether one chooses to help or not, it is the individual choice. But when "altruism" is used as an excuse to force some one to respond, it is wrong.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 5 years, 7 months ago
    Exchanging favors is a trade. Trading is the quintessential practice of exchanging values. No sacrifice or "living for the other" is involved. John Galt would give his life to spare Dagny from being tortured. When you consider someone your highest value, living and even dying for them is a fitting price.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 7 months ago
      Yes I think I knew that was it, like I said in my OP, I'm certain that giving was "allowed" but didn't see where it fit in to Galt/Rand's philosophy. My question was simply food for thought.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ssdwin 5 years, 7 months ago
    Living for the sake of another simply means abandoning one's own purposes and loves for living. Benevolence falls outside that principle as does rearing one's children. Raising children is a short term proposition.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by AlfredENewman 5 years, 7 months ago
    When a neighbor comes to borrow some milk for the kids cereal (doing that to a kid is just cruel but that is another argument) implies a duty to return the borrow as soon as possible. It is my not returning the milk that one has asked another to live for him.

    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?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo