13

Altruism or personal responsibility

Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago to The Gulch: General
87 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

My grandparents passed away many years ago. I was thinking of them the other day and I was wondering how things would have turned out if they were Objectivists. Long before I was born my grandmother had what the doctors called a nervous breakdown. The family didn't talk about this much but from what I was told she was unable to make her own medical decisions. It was recommended to my grandfather that the accepted treatment be used---electric shock therapy. I'm guessing the doctors deemed it a success. She no longer had wide up and down mood swings but she was a shell of her former self. According to my mom she was fun loving and out going before. After the treatment she became extremely withdrawn and had difficulty walking(not sure if it was from the treatment). My grandfather stayed with her until his death taking care of her every need. It was quite a burden on him and I feel he stayed out the guilt he felt for allowing the shock treatments to be done. Would an Objectivist say he should have left and led a more full filling life? Wasn't he being personally responsible for his actions? They seemed happy in their own way but I still wonder if he did the right thing.

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Amazing. Farmers should be millionaires and the "Kardashian" types should struggle. He saw a lot of changes in 101 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years ago
    That drives straight into The Third Law of Objectivism. Start with it's not altruism if it's freely given or accepted. Then apply moral standards of the individual involved.

    However if it's because of some outside viewpoint which may hold legal supremacy another story.

    A clear case in point is keeping people alive beyond any hope of any miracle last second cure and forcing them to live a demeaning life - for example incontinence.

    Everyone should have, if nothing else, last instructions for something like no heroic actions, no machinery to sustain life...etc.

    The way people without that have to live never mind seeing all they have sucked away in both dollars and dignity leads me to this conclusion.

    It's not unusual but it's definitely cruel.

    Especially when those who cause it aren't paying the cost of their cruelty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    My paternal grandparents faced a similar situation. My grandmother had a cancerous tumor in her brain. As a result, my father claims that I never really knew my grandmother at all. One such example was that my grandfather was a dry farmer who would occasionally foray into livestock (chickens, cattle, even sheep) to try to augment his meager earnings. One day my grandfather came home to find that his wife had inexplicably sold the entire herd of sheep for pennies on the dollar. (I think the reason was that their bleating was getting on grandmother's nerves.) He lost a fortune (to him). As a result, he was forced to take legal steps to have my grandmother declared legally ineligible for any fiduciary responsibilities.

    Nevertheless, he loved and cared for her for decades until she finally passed away. His love for her was the love for who he knew her to be. He lived to be 101 before moving on. I still remember his 100th birthday party.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years ago
    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
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That is a really tough situation Stormi. Sorry you had to go thru that. My grandfather probably didn't think it a burden after a while. It was just their lives. I just wish he would have accepted more help. Even as he got older I remember she was still walking with a cane. If she fell he wouldn't let anyone help get her up. He had to do it himself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by roneida 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    to jbrenner.. The best I can suggest to help with decisions this tough, read Ayn Rands ideas on love. We do not "sacrifice" for those we love because to not help would be a price we could not stand to pay. What is called sacrifice is what one does for unknown people and unknown reasons, We are brow beaten to accept the concept that "no greater love has a person than he who will lay down his life for others, but why would one be so motivated if they don't know or love them? Common , collective mutual defense is not part of this thinking...that is survival and is often necessary. If one dies in a common defense, she is a justifiably a hero, but the common defense involves ones' love of oneself and of ones' loved ones. Strangers have no claim on your life. Some choose to give strangers that claim and that is their right.. just don't volunteer others.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Thank you Blarman. My understanding is that she was not the same person after the treatment. Not sure how I would handle that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    It was something that was almost never talked about directly but my impression was that he blamed himself. He took early retirement to care for her. He was asked to return to work because his former department was struggling. He refused and some old friends got laid off. I know he felt a lot of guilt over that. He should not have. That definitely was not his fault.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks Hero. Taking care of his family was very important so maybe it was consistent with Objectivism. Hard to say for sure.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ HeroWorship 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Much of it is conscience in reference to mutuality and empathy...sometimes even accountability earned or unearned. It's a Conscious Human Trait and I'm not sure we as a species survive without it.

    Teaching about earned and unearned guilt and how to forgive one's self or at least how to deal with it would be a valuable lesson.
    I am not sure there is anyone these days that is qualified.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Not sure how we can change that if its learned at a young age. I think you're right Carl, my grandmother outlived him by about 5 years.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years ago
    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "repaying perceived past benefits"
    I think it more like an insurance contract. I get to be married to a beautiful person who promises to stay with me and provide some care even if I become disabled. The price I pay I make a reciprocal agreement to do the same for my partner if she should become disabled.

    It's similar to how we pay for term life on both of us that we don't think we'll use. Or maybe it's more like a whole life policy, which I would not buy b/c there are better vehicles, that invests part of your premium into an annuity that will provide for you from retirement until death.

    It's the reverse of my writing PUT options that some of you doom-and-gloomers probably purchase from me. I don't think it will happen, but if the market crashes, I have to buy your shares at the strike price. That's not alms. It's what I'm obligated to do in exchange for the premiums when I write the options.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo