"First: A man’s chief loyalty must be to the woman who has joined her life to his; to the children who call him father; and to the business which feeds and clothes and houses them all."
A greater truism can hardly have been spoken.
A greater truism can hardly have been spoken.
Fast forward to the eighties and "the business which feeds and clothes and houses them all" being acquired is a common event. Then the fat gets trimmed. The fat being you, the loyal employee whose work made the business acquire-worthy in the first place. Your loyalty being repaid is not in the books, the value you created is.
So, loyalty to the people is ok. The relationship with a business is governed by contracts and little more.
Agreed. In the 20s you took care of "the business" that takes care of you. Nowadays, you attend to "the career" that takes care of you.
Life expectancy of a 35 year old male in the 1920s was about 67, for a woman 68. It's about a decade more now. Source (expressed as years of survival): http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
And as I recall, promises of life-long employment hit a bit of a reef in the late 1920s.
That said, yes, we've exchanged greater life expectancy for much reduced employer loyalty.
Money has lead to health and prosperity for more, but the poor remain in the lot of our ancestors.
The first two are backwards. If you doubt me, think about what happens in a divorce.
Disclaimer, I've been married over 20 years and never divorced. My kids come first. I'm fairly sure that my wife puts our kids first as well.
Disclaimer: Married 4 years, no kids, only speculating.
When my kids are teenagers, perhaps my feelings will shift.
But right now my kids come first in my emotional life. I would die for them. I have compromised work for them. It wasn't even a question. I support my wife, but not as unconditionally as I support my children.
This does not mean that I do everything they want. This does not mean that I try to be their lives. I want them happy and healthy, and I do everything that I think is good for them. This is not the same as being their friends. Nor should it be.
In a divorce, both relationships have failed. The base purpose of marriage is to procreate, not that it is necessary, but on some level we realize that this is truth in Western Civilization.
Evolution does not care whether your children are happy and healthy. It cares that you have a bunch of them, and they have children in turn.
I am not very successful evolutionarily. Nor do I strive to be.
Kids want a stable, loving environment, and will learn about adult relationships by observing how their parents treat each other (as well as how they treat them). Being around a strong marriage is pretty much the best gift (as well as time) that you can give kids.
I always thought it was a mistake for my parents not to spend more time together outside of their parental roles, and even when I was a kid I could see these as seeds of later turmoil. So whilst this advice isn't directly for you, I'd advise any parents to make some time to enjoy together, away from their kids (so long as the kids are old enough to be looked after by others). Its not selfish if everyone wins.
It seems to me "your children come first" is the traditional expectation of modern, American society, but I think it's wrong. At least in my case, it led to me being very well treated and doted on within a tragic environment of my parents' relationship falling apart.
This NYTimes blog post [1] captures my feelings pretty well.
[1] http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/priorities-chi...
But even when we're together, the children are still on our minds.
You are not prepared for the hormone storm that you'll experience the first time you hold your child.
For me, I wasn't sure I was ready. I said yes to having kids because my wife wanted kids. The moment I held my son for the first time, on the other hand, all my priorities shifted instantly.
Maybe you'll still hold on to the idea of putting your wife first, but you're not in any position to make decisions about it at this stage and expect them to hold firm.
Hormones control a substantial part of your life, no matter whether you like it or not, and they influence and control a large part of the decision you think you made rationally.
Children not only need loving parents, i.e. parents who love THEM, but also ones who love each other, a couple a model. It's needed for them to want a family, it's needed so that they don't see having children as an obstacle in the way of their personal happiness.
So sometimes, it's beneficial to put the children second, beneficial from their point of view as well. But in general, I don't think there are too many situations when we have to think about who comes first (unless we marry an asshole :) ).
When every subgroup is fighting for itself we get... What we have today. Chaos.
Another example: You own apartments, and some poor immigrant student can't afford the rent in the city with his university. You lower the rent, because a happy PhD is worth more than $100/month. Yes, even if you don't know him and won't gain anything from it.
Another example: You're the personnel at that top university. You agree to be paid less than you deserve so more can afford the education.
Another example: You can get in Google because of a friend. But you know someone else more qualified wants the job too. You let him have it. Because it is best for society that everyone gets the job he deserves, and that important jobs are done efficiently, instead of cheating for your own sake.
Another example: You know you can increase sales dramatically by using gamification and abusing psychology to get your users addicted to reward mechanisms. You don't do it, because it's best for society that clueless people don't waste their time/resources with bad MMOs and Farmville, despite the interests of your company.
Another example: You can get a lot of profit by hiding poor products under shiny overpriced cases, then throwing money at marketing. You don't do it because it's not in the interests of the people.
Another example: You don't use your marketing/SEO skills to sell a fancy software which already exists as a superior FOSS alternative. (Broken window fallacy)
Another example: Don't pull out the mote from your eye, but the beam in your neighbor's eye instead (no, I'm not religious)
Another example: You agree to pay taxes so that the sick and poor stop dying and starving on the street.
Final example: You can help people around you, but you're going to appear weak and it will hurt your social status... Oh terrible... You do it anyway.
Some of these examples are poor, but I could write a book about it, and the point is obvious, isn't it? Really I can't believe I have to argue about it.
Of course that's hopelessly idealist and unpractical. But only because everyone else is selfish and shortsighted in the first place. I'm just saying this is how it would work in a perfect world, and this is how Reason says we should strive to act. Optimization requires resources to go where they are needed most. If you disagree with this statement, use arguments, and good luck. "Me first", "my family first", "my company first", "my country first" is not good enough. It's chaos. All the evil in the world rests on these "good" intentions. People get slaughtered for the sake of others' families. Do it if you want, but don't downvote me then pretend it's the moral thing to do, when it's obviously not.
Anyway I'm done with this site, constantly obsessed with personal "success" to the point of biased and blind amorality... A faithful portrayal of the modern world.
One of these days we will drop the ego, and the sooner the better.
> Daughter wants a iPhone, you want a new car. Some neighbor needs help to pay healthcare bills. You don't buy the shiny things, and help the neighbor instead.
Say your neighbour can't pay his healthcare bills because he was laid off for being drunk while on the job. His healthcare bills are the result of an altercation with his bookie, for gambling debts he couldn't pay. Is it worth encouraging his behaviour by supporting his healthcare bills?
> Another example: You own apartments, and some poor immigrant student can't afford the rent in the city with his university. You lower the rent, because a happy PhD is worth more than $100/month. Yes, even if you don't know him and won't gain anything from it.
The PhD student is living above his means by wanting an apartment in the city, when he could easily live a little further away for less rent. Is it good to spoil him, and give him the expectation that he can get anything without hard work?
> Another example: You're the personnel at that top university. You agree to be paid less than you deserve so more can afford the education.
The University notices your pay cut, so decides to cut the remaining staff's wages to be fair. They don't reduce the tuition fee for students but instead, hire more staff at the university with the cost savings.
I could go on with the rest of your examples but I guess the point I'm trying to make is you never know what everyone's backgrounds and motivations are.
I'm not saying don't help people out, but chose very carefully who you help out as most people aren't victims because of circumstance, but usually victims of their own doing.
I can't agree that's the case. Believing otherwise is simply convenient.
--
As a postscript, it seems to me that many people believe the myth that absolutely anyone can make it if you try hard enough - an extension of what's been sold to me as the American dream. Of course, the corollary of this, is that those who don't achieve are victims of their own laziness and lack of motivation.
I can't state strongly enough how untrue this is. Once upon a time it may have been true, but now — even those born within the same country — enter into the world on a vastly uneven playing field.
Someone who is born into poverty is quite simply likely to die in poverty. Some succeed against all odds — however luck often plays a strong part in a person's effort regardless of the amount of effort they put in.
To state that most people who are victims, are victims of their own doing, isn't true. Again, it's simply convenient to believe so, because it removes the need for altruism.
I would go further and say that it has never been true. It's a lie people who do well tell themselves, and everyone else, to feel better and justify a whole slew of unjust actions.
Sometimes people are also victims of their own actions, but does that mean we shouldn't help them? I don't think so.. we all mess up from time to time.