Pinestreet

Okay -- I think I understand now. Let me try and restate this, let me know if I'm still a little off. Selflessness may be a sin in Objectivism, but there's a difference between selflessness and voluntary charity. The line is drawn at a different point for every person -- a point where the act becomes a sacrifice rather than a trade for an emotional value greater than or equal to that which they donated. If an individual or cause is important to you, and you can afford to contribute time and/or money to it, to do so is essentially the same as spending money on any other object. The only difference is an emotional return rather than a material one. That said, the only recourse of those who cannot, for whatever hypothetical reason, produce value, is to rely on voluntary charity for their means of survival. Barring that, one dies -- no man has the right to force another to provide him with his means of survival. Is that about right?

But where do we draw the line between charity and the selflessness that Objectivism considers a sin? I realize it's in the best interest of every citizen in a society to have happy, healthy peers in a clean environment, but it seems sort've contradictory to tell someone they're at the mercy of charity while condeming self-sacrifice. Hmm.. Is there some minimum level that every citizen should be willing to contribute to his society in the form of charity, to make it better? Some amount equal in value to how much he values his environment and those around him? I suppose that's the only way I can reason out the answer to the above. --Ben

Long time reader, first time poster. I'm relatively new to Objectivism and while in a discussion about it the other day, someone posed a question I couldn't come up with an answer for. We were talking about Capitalist society and producing value for rational exchange being the moral behavior of your typical citizen. His question was, "...suppose that I have nothing that anyone else demands (I have no skills, no property, no creative ability, and, let's say, I cannot direct calls or lift bales of hay, etc.). Nevertheless, I require food and shelter, health care and other modern necessities. How do I get these things?" Beyond just how to get them, I've found I can't really form a coherent answer to how any unproductive member of society (whether by accident of circumstance, physical or mental defect, or otherwise), with no real ability to engage in that rational exchange, is supposed to survive, morally. Can anyone help me out here? --Ben