Why Young People Shouldn't Live to Serve: Ayn Rand Explains

[@stevenkreisman443]

Ayn Rand was the only person with the guts to attack the evil moral code of altruism that predominates in our culture.

[@Triple_J.1]

She was the only one to Identify it as evil.

[@johnnynick3621]

@@Triple_J.1 ....first....but not only.

[@colaaddict782]

friedrich nietzsche did it also.

[@willnitschke]

@@colaaddict782 No he didn't.

[@colaaddict782]

@@willnitschke why? nietzsche was against altruism.

[@hmmmmmmminteresting]

Everything she says makes so much sense

[@willnitschke]

She's not really someone who an uber-stupid person should listen to, true.

[@vbg345]

"The duty of another is full of danger." Every human is responsible for his/her own growth, well-being, development, etc.

[@j.jester7821]

Wish I had thought this way when i was younger. I wasted a lot of effort and time on caring for others when i should have been caring for myself. most people will use you until you are all used up.

[@BenHayward-k8e]

How can anyone be of any good to others if there not good to themselves.. and that's by reflection, information, experience and personal growth..

[@BusinessWithinU]

Damn I love her accent❤

[@davidhabart5323]

Makes a lot of sense. And, sometimes helping others at young age actually serves self development and helps to find apropriate profession for oneself - making it non-sacrificial.

[@poet.in.flight]

That's what rolled through my mind too. Made me think of character-building. The difference has to be motivation then. Young people can gain skills and knowledge for their service in apprenticeships and volunteerism so it's a good trade

[@kitchencarvings4621]

Right. They should live for themselves and their happiness. Critics of Rand automatically assume this means harming others or not caring about others. Rand defined self-interest as the concern with one's own interests. There is nothing in this definition about how one achieves one's interests. To the altruist mentality you either sacrifice yourself to others or sacrifice others to yourself. Rand rejected this false alternative. You live for yourself and help others out of goodwill and not as a duty you must perform apart from your values.

[@headfirst6227]

Ayn Rand could take on wokology and kick it's butt. She is now at the top of my reading list.

[@renebuesa554]

Ayn Rand was asked the very interesting question, "do you oppose young people being concerned with the welfare of others"? Her reply was, "I believe that every man should be concerned with himself and with his own development into the kind of human being that might be fit to live in a society with others.... we're talking about a man's formative years of his life, the college years. He is not yet properly developed. He is not in a position to undertake to help others.... A young man should first become the kind of man who can help others if that is what he wants, to begin with." I thought Ayn Rand's response reflects the kind of evidence-based truth that just can't be ignored. For instance, in nature we can observe creatures with young to feed and care will make sure to feed themselves first before they undertake feeding their young, but this doesn't mean that they won't act on behalf of their young if and when circumstances threaten. For human beings is a bit more challenging I think because of what we're endowed with from birth and yet before we can access these human gifts, we'll be troubled through-out life unless we undertake the work that it demands. Without exception, all human beings are born with poverty within us. We all start life poor spiritually, poor emotionally, poor intellectually, poor skills wise, etc. Yet only human beings can break the chains of poverty within us when the individual person commits to acquire the knowledge and wisdom used to build us all spiritually, emotionally, intellectually, etc. The condition of poverty starts at birth, and it is within us all, and it never is within the environment. Poverty will remain within us if we fail to commit to building ourselves from the inside-out first and poverty within us cannot be brought to an end just because we acquire a great deal of money, material things, nor by engaging in endless toil. Ayn Rand spoke about the environment and stated, "I do not believe that environment conditions men, because if it did, mankind would never have survived. The worst type of environment here is luxury compared to what the rest of the world lives in. And therefore, if men cannot rise out of poverty in this country, they couldn't survive in the rest of this globe at all, because the conditions there are infinitely worse, materially, spiritually, every other way.... therefore, I donot believe that the poor in this country are victims of society." While the issue of poverty is very much with-in us and not from the outside in, however, the environment bares historical evidence that it does, and it will be used to condition human behavior. The historical record shows that humankind has always claimed ownership over the environment. If there is one take away from modern history is that after humankind claims ownership over the environment, they will manipulate the environment to favor some people and yet choose to use it against other people. The environment is also not without its human prerogatives to omit specific behaviors and reinforcements as well. One of the most unforgettable lessons of behavioral psychology is that "our sense of guilt and shame is contingent on environmental reinforcement." When the environment is manipulated to reflect human prerogatives to omit specific moral reinforcements, otherwise serving to limit the conduct and behaviors between human beings, this is evidential of environment used to condition humankind. The loss of environmental reinforcement for our sense of guilt and shame has over time enabled the wanton public lying and deceiving behaviors we all get to witness and suffer within our American society today. Environment is indeed instrumental in reinforcing behaviors that will ultimately condition humankind. ReneB, Florida.

[@mstrainjr]

On a similar note, this is why I believe young women should not be married until they have established themselves in a career, if having a career is their goal. If a woman married young, and especially if she has a child young, she is more likely to deal with financial struggles for a very long time, and she is less likely to get the career that she wanted.

[@lefantomer]

I believe this is part of why the Christian conservatives are working so hard to impose bans on abortion -- and now on some effective forms of birth control -- they want to send women "back to the home". They see a pregnant woman as nothing more than a farm animal, a brood mare with no rights so long as a fetus lives off her body. Some rail against women who do wait until they are over 30 and have established their lives. Christianity is a cult of self-sacrifice and obedience to an imaginary god, and its claims of freedom are empty.

[@stvargas69]

Ummm.... I think if a person is going to commit to a career, then do so. If they want children then a priority needs to be established. Child or career. You put your child 1st, then the likelihood of developing their character & fortitude is great. You put your career ahead of the child then the world will raise your child and you will never have them leave your apron. Your choice, kids are not pets or check boxes

[@lefantomer]

@@stvargas69 Nor are women brood mares or check boxes. Some women can handle both children and careers without short-changing either. Some women don't want careers and some don't want children. It is their lives and should be their choice, according to which they desire most and believe will bring them the most fulfillment.

[@BoaConstrictor126]

The reason people can escape poverty in countries outside of America is because of intact families. In America families are not intact and it is impossible for men to escape poverty without intact families but especially in a radical feminist society. If Ayn Rand were alive today she would be singing a different tune. That being said I do agree with everything else in the video. I definitely wish I had been less generous when I was younger so that I could afford to be more generous now. That being said the outcome would’ve been the same even if I had done things differently. Unfortunately America is not the same today as it was when Ayn Rand was alive.

[@Iamjamessmith1]

Of course this is a good statement but there is a statement that encompasses it that all business serves others and we only get money from others so others are very important

[@Avidcomp]

But not the primary concern.

[@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573]

No, all business serves to make profit first and provide goods or services second.

[@willnitschke]

@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 😅🤣😂 Nobody can make a profit without providing goods and services of value to others, FIRST. It doesn't work the other way around knucklehead. 😂

[@ritamailheau771]

Biblically, men are given these weightier services in society when they are at least 30 years of age. Victimhood does exist but as an attitude it is toxic.

[@italianmiltyfriedman6264]

Zoomers and millenials have entered the chat

[@el-sig2249]

Am what if the sacrifice of the young man constitutes an essential part of his development? This philosophy is obviously flawed as it is limited in scope. I don't know why so many don't see it.

[@EmperorMatticusII]

Sacrifice is one of the highest human virtues.

[@willnitschke]

Sure, if you're a King seeking cannon fodder.

[@EmperorMatticusII]

@@willnitschke It’s a virtue that can be applied to every person, King or soldier, farmer or teacher. It prevails when other virtues do not.

[@willnitschke]

@@EmperorMatticusII Something is not a virtue because some anonymous nitwit on the intertubes says so. And there is no virtue in a foot soldier being slaughtered because some King somewhere wants more palaces or lands to tax.

[@johnnynick6179]

How absurd. Sacrificing something you value for something you do NOT value is not possible for any thinking being. Those who pretend to do so are deluding themselves.

[@willnitschke]

@@EmperorMatticusII No it doesn't. Sacrifice is promoted by the State to further the ambitions of the ruling elite. You're taught to believe in what's in their interests, instead or your own (or your family), because you're gullible.

[@hypnosismeditation7518]

In her private life Rand was petty, envious and unhappy. Remind me again why I should embrace her philosophy?

[@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573]

That's a textbook case of ad hominem. Churchill was a rude womanizer and alcoholic while Hitler was against smoking and loved dogs. People's personality has no bearing on whether they are right or not. Also, you're calling yourself "hypnosismeditation", even though hypnosis a completely separate thing from meditation. Remind me again why I should listen to you on philosophy when you're wrong about how the mind works!

[@hypnosismeditation7518]

@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 That's how the comments section works buttercup!

[@johnnynick3621]

@@hypnosismeditation7518 Yes buttercup....the comment section allows any moron to comment about things they know nothing about. That's why you are here. Nobody is asking YOU to embrace Rand's philosophy. We don't want YOU on our side. It would be an embarrassment.

[@kitchencarvings4621]

You should embrace it because it is true and the only thing that can save the world. Who cares what Rand was like personally and many people who knew her personally attest to a different Rand, warm and giving, a true life-giver. She took ideas seriously and that may be why some thought she was what you say of her. I don't really care about her personal life.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

Unhappy? Maybe when she lost what she found valuable, but she dusted herself off and quickly returned to her lifelong purpose of learning.

[@Peacefulnessxxx]

Its mostly correct but to help others when possible should be right and must be so.