Should you spend all your money before you die?

[JacobGalt]

What's the point of saving it for your kids, if, when you're dead, they can't be a value (after all, you're not a living being anymore)? Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

[Greebo]

You've got a lot of these kinds of questions in your topic creation portfolio. I'm starting to wonder about your motives.

But ok - I'll answer you.

You are assuming that there is a dichotomy here. That it is either right or wrong to leave your children something, or nothing. That is a false dichotomy.

You're right about the fact that after you die, they cannot be of any value to you. But when you are dead, you cannot have ANY values. It is your values that are important. It would be redundant to say "it is your values while you are alive" - because YOU does not extend beyond your death, so you can only HAVE values while you are alive.

So - while you are *alive* the question you have to ask yourself about your children is, What's more important *to you*? Your children's well being? Or your own? It is perfectly rational for a parent to value their children so highly that they would not want to live if they had not done everything possible for their children, just as it would be perfectly rational for you to value someone enough that you wouldn't want to live knowing that you had a chance to save their life and did not act to do so.

So - if a parent values their children very highly, then they will have to determine whether they want to die knowing they've helped boost their children along their own way, or to die knowing that their children will get nothing from their estate. It is therefore no dichotomy at all - but a matter of individual choice, not only to each parent, but by each parent about each child. A parent may value one child very highly - if Nat Taggart had been alive, I have little doubt that he would have cherished Dagny as a kindred soul, and I have equally little doubt that he would have regarded James Taggart as the moocher and looter and nihilist that he was. In such a case, he would have likely said in his will that James got nothing and Dagny got it all.

[Jake_Ellison]

What's the point of saving it for your kids, if, when you're dead, they can't be a value (after all, you're not a living being anymore)? Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

You're not saving it for your kids after you're dead, you're saving it while you're alive. After you're dead, you're welcome to ignore your loved ones completely .

(and yes, that is really what is wrong with your reasoning, I wasn't just going for the joke)

[Dante]

What's the point of saving it for your kids, if, when you're dead, they can't be a value (after all, you're not a living being anymore)? Is there anything wrong with my reasoning?

Why would you spend it on yourself before you die if this would actually cause you more anxiety in your remaining days than if you had saved it for the people you care about?

Either way, your concerns stop when you die. Saving for people you care about could very well make your life before you die much more pleasant than anything that money could buy you. If you truly don't have anyone else that you care about, then you might well spend the money on yourself, because you wouldn't have to sacrifice a higher value to do it.

[Hotu Matua]

Valued objects exist in space and time.

And their existence is independent of conciousness.

Even when the interaction between the valuer and the valued object happens at a certain place and time, primacy of existence over counciousness prescribes that the people you value exist even if you are not sharing their spatial and temporal dimensions at all times.

For example, you love and keep supporting a son even if he is in Vladivostok and has not phoned you or e-mailed you over the last few days. He has not vanished, or at least you have good reasons to assume he exists, even when you cannot see him or hear his voice.

Same thing with the time dimension. You have good reasons to assume that your son will survive after your death. You will not see him, or hear him, but still he will be there. Just a matter of the primacy of existence.

So, even when values are relational and not intrinsic, your current valueing process may entail actions to keep your valued object safe even after you lose contact with it.

To me, interest in future generations and the world I will be leaving to them is not at odds with Objectivism, when manifested in a rational, non-sacrificial set of actions.

[whYNOT]

Valued objects exist in space and time.

And their existence is independent of conciousness.

Even when the interaction between the valuer and the valued object happens at a certain place and time, primacy of existence over counciousness prescribes that the people you value exist even if you are not sharing their spatial and temporal dimensions at all times.

For example, you love and keep supporting a son even if he is in Vladivostok and has not phoned you or e-mailed you over the last few days. He has not vanished, or at least you have good reasons to assume he exists, even when you cannot see him or hear his voice.

Same thing with the time dimension. You have good reasons to assume that your son will survive after your death. You will not see him, or hear him, but still he will be there. Just a matter of the primacy of existence.

So, even when values are relational and not intrinsic, your current valueing process may entail actions to keep your valued object safe even after you lose contact with it.

To me, interest in future generations and the world I will be leaving to them is not at odds with Objectivism, when manifested in a rational, non-sacrificial set of actions.

A highly rational appraisal that supplies the premises to my own identical conclusions.

Well said.

[stump]

Some multimillionairs dont leave a penny for their kids because they feel they should be able to make their own money just as they did themselves.