I believe the day will come when I stand before my maker and answer for my life. I think He will ask me if I helped His children come closer to Him. I don't think He will ask me if I gave them a video game or a cell phone, and might not be happy if I did. He will want to know if I helped raise them up. *THAT* is "my *ism" that is driving my feelings.

I believe I have to make the best/most of myself in order to be of service to others. What can a poor, broke dude do to help a struggling family? Commiserate? What can someone with over 20 years of leadership development and 36 years of business experience do? A dang site more than sitting around grousing about the economy!

If I did not struggle to make myself better, then there is no way I could help anyone else. So I am selfish, and focused on self-improvement, so I can be serviceable to those around me, who, by their attitudes and actions, tell me they are ready to take the next step.

Personally (again from an X RLDS person) I think the "you MUST be charitable to be a better being in the eyes of God" is brain washing that a LOT of people buy into...along with a whole host of other obligations ie: attending church, tithes, serving your "calling", it goes on and on. A drug addict joins the church and then starts needing help and everyone jumps because it's the Christian thing to do...bla bla bla. Anyway... some people are convinced they are happy serving others, because they're told that it's the right thing to do and who doesn't want to do the right thing...that's what gets you into heaven, right? I could go on about this for hours but I'm already boring myself. lol Read the Fountainhead. It talks about "second handers"...that's what I think this is. Getting your worth/value second handedly, through the eyes of others who are smiling for your good deeds and they pat you on the back and say great job, you're such a good person and that gets reflected back to you...so your self worth is only a reflection of the approval of others . I hope that made sense...and I hope I'm not offending you. I'm blunt...and I used to be you.

Another point. I have had a number of folks attempt to equate "Christian charity" with a guilt-trip mentality. Why do this for a god who demands you do things for others before yourself -- that you will only "find yourself" by "losing yourself in the service of others."

I will say this much, to that point: I know a lot of people (not just LDS and/or Christian) who have adopted a mindset of being of service to others, and the quality of their life is very high. There really does seem to be something to the "lose yourself" doctrine.

For me, that all changes the moment someone decides that "doing good for others" is so important that they need to force their "charitable acts" on others. Today we call them liberals, marxists, progressives, etc.

If you had to choose between following an 'ism to the tenth degree, or embracing your desire to be charitable to those worthy of your charity, while embracing the aspects of that 'ism that are meaningful to you...what would you choose?

I think that I know (and you know) your answer...and I would agree with you 100%.

Go back and listen to Rand...it's all about rational self interest...if it makes YOU happy to do it...you don't OWE anybody anything.

If it's truly of your own choosing, not coerced in any way then how can that be wrong? Your life and love of it...go for it. However, with that said, (coming from and Xreligious person) sometimes religious people have a hard time separating what they really WANT to do from what they think they SHOULD do. (Guilt and irrational obligations are a form of coercion). Maybe that's where you're real struggle is... ? :)

The deal with the cigarette is an interesting example. I'll counter with one of my own.

Last year while doing contract work in the Bay Area (my main "job" is as a senior systems engineer), I noted a woman and her two kids trying to go to sleep in a car next to my suburban. The kids were hungry and cold; she was frustrated and crying. I did something truly stupid, I know -- I'm smarter than this, but I just felt compelled to do something. I said: "Darlin, I'm an old grandpa, and I just can't stand to see kids go to bed hungry. Let me buy them some dinner."

We went two blocks to the Denny's, and I bought the three of them dinner. We sat there and talked for a good while -- until after 3am.

I talked with the mom about the decisions that brought her to that point in her life, and what she might look at doing to fix things. We talked at length about what options she had, and did not have, based on the choices she had made in the past. One of the leadership development lessons we teach is: “Our achievements of today are but the sum total of our thoughts of yesterday. You are today where the thoughts of yesterday have brought you and you will be tomorrow where the thoughts of today take you.” (Blaise Pascal)

I "invested" what companies have paid me more than $1,000 to teach their managers, probably $100 in cash, a blanket and two pillows for the kids, and 5 hours of my time, and a night's sleep. When we were finished, she was writing her goals and a to-do list for the rest of the week. The smile on her face knowing she had a future was of more value to me than everything I "spent" on her.

A couple of weeks later I saw her at Trader Jo's buying food. She didn't see me. She was smiling and talking about her new job.

Obviously this is an extreme example. But it shows a point. When I feel compelled to invest my time, energy, money, effort, whatever into someone, I do so with impunity. Sometimes I am more charitable than most folks, and if I truly talked about all of the things I do to "invest" in others, I'd probably be called an idiot. I probably am.

I agree that there is value to be had with Objectivism. Even when I was not a fan of AR or AS, I still had many of the philosophical attributes. That is what led me to become more libertarian.

I see a lot of Christians who, I believe, are buffaloed by the left/liberal line of charity at all costs, and get snookered into supporting things which are, to my way of thinking, quite un-Christian. When I talk to them about the "evils of altruism," it almost sounds un-Christ-like -- but that, I think, is because they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the liberal bias that they cannot see the truth for themselves.

I don't really see an issue with being charitable, and keeping the Galt oath. But there are still nagging thoughts floating around about how to implement both. Hence my query.

I did not understand your last line. Please explain.

In some of my reading of other sites and commentary on Ayn Rand and the philosophical aspects of her teaching, it just felt to me like anything done for charitable purposes was seen as an evil.

I had heard of her a LONG time ago, and even saw part of an interview she gave. She talked about the virtues of selfishness and the evils of altruism. In this discussion she talked a couple of times about charity work, and it just seemed it was never in a good way.

That is exactly why I do not contribute to United Way. The contribute to organizations which I do not support, or I feel are counter to my social values.

I believe that I can live for myself, and not "for the sake of another man," if I do everything in my personal power to reach my greatest level of achievement. By doing this, I am "living for myself." By expanding my talents, by creating more, by producing more, by being more, I grow myself, which is being as true to me as I can be.

At the same time, I feel like I can, of my own free will and accord, take some of the blessings I have been given and some of the surplus I have, and help others who have not had some of the same opportunities I have had and/or have been victimized by someone (something), and need help. I do not, personally, equate helping others with "living for the sake of another."

I have had people give me opportunities I probably did not deserve, using their position and resources to help bring me up to a higher level than I was. I do not believe they were "living for the sake of another," but that they saw some potential in me they could work with. I certainly do not expect another man to work for my sake -- I expect him to pay me for the value and benefit I give him.

So I can bring both concepts, living for self and Christian charity, together without feeling like I am doing either an injustice.

want is the operative word here as long as that want is virtuous.
I "want" to give to a certain university. But, if they are teaching or researching philosophy that is intended to destroy me, is that right?

Giving... from the heart... because you WANT to... is a noble and great thing. Giving because it's *expected* or *demanded" of you by others (usually through a guilt trip) is an evil thing...

Thinlk of the scene where Dagny wanted a cigarette... there was no way to buy a pack, as she had no currency that had any value whatsoever, but she was given one, not out of a beg or plea, but as a righteous and self-induced act of giving. Therein lies the difference...

If no one is forcing you to help others, either by theft of what you've earned or through guilt of having earned it, and you're giving and helping of your own free will, and it's what you WANT to do, and you feel the people you are helping are worth your efforts, then where's the conflict exactly?

Hello Lee,
If you receive value, or happiness being charitable then it isn't altruism as it is commonly understood since you consider it a worthy and equitable exchange. No problem exists with the way you dispose of your property so long as it is voluntary. Even Rand had some appreciation for Christian ethics. It was the mysticism and the martyrdom that she was critical of.

I am of the opinion that it is better to adopt as much of the philosophy as you can. What difference does it make to anyone what you believe may happen in the afterlife so long as you do not force it upon others?

We have discussed this topic before with others and some here will not agree with me and believe you must accept all of the tenets of Objectivism, but I believe there is value to be had regardless.
Regards,
O.A.