+1

Exogenous guilt is presented; it does not have to be accepted. Knowing the difference can take a lifetime for some people.

Exactly. Impossible to say if his life would have been better had he made other choices. Thanks OA.

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.

That is how it should be. Unfortunately, there are many non-Objectivists who think it is their place to tell you that you ought to feel guilty. That is what I call false guilt

Guilt (or remorse) is the emotional (and, sometimes, physical) response to violating your own values.

Great points. I agree completely on the self destructive behavior.

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.

OK, point taken. I thought of that after I posted it. I would have liked to have been close to my father, but there were irreconcilable differences between us. Much of it revolved around religion.

Please do not envy me. AR was correct in stating that envy is the hatred of the good for being the good.

My father was a fine man. I am glad to call him my father.

I think we are on the same page.

Very well said Herb. Thank you.

JB:
In a way, I envy you. My father and I were at odds for most of my life. You had a relationship that I would have given much to have had. Taking care of him is just a matter of reciprocity. He gives you something of great value and you return it in kind.

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.

Thanks. I was told that the place that she had this done was Dixmont State Hospital. It has since been closed and torn down. When the State sold the property one of the stipulations was that all future owners have to maintain the Cemetery. Many people were abandoned there and would die with no family to claim the body. Over the years a lot of patients were buried there. Really sad.

Excellent points. He was fortunate to have somrone like you.

When you're a hammer, all the world is a nail. When you're a surgeon, the only to heal is with cold steel. And when you're a psychiatrist, you think you can cure all the world's ills with expensive, hard-to-get kinds of dope, shocking people into seizures, and even pumping them full of insulin to put them into comas.

Ironically--at least some reading this might hold it ironical--a preacher came up with the idea of facing, head-on, the issues causing the bad thinking habits responsible for depression, paranoid ideation, and all the rest of it. And he did it because he did not want to countenance the idea of doping up to the gills because somebody in a white smock said she should. Dope is still dope! And some preachers do not distinguish between the dope you get in a doctor's office, and the dope you can get on the street (marijuana, "speed," "reds," "acid," "smack," etc.).

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.

Good. And I was giving you an Obj.ist view.

I remember my grandfather as someone who liked to make decisions. He would have felt he made an informed decision I think. I didn't think of it til you said it but she probably never did deal with what caused the issue in the first place. Hard to believe they did this to people.

They did make things work. I'm sure they took the marriage contract seriously but they were in love. They also had 3 kids who were still quite young when this happened.

He was definitely a man of his word. Part of my problem may be that we now think of shock treatment as barbaric. At the time it was accepted practice. Hard to tell how many lives were forever changed by that procedure.