7 ms·

"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 clot

by wyclif 14y ago

"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.

lwhi 14y ago
It's a romantic notion, but caring about friends, community and society at large needs to factor in somewhere.
- zwily 14y ago
  Sure they do... after those things. He said "chief loyalty", not "sole loyalty".
  - lywald 14y ago
    Putting society above all is the only path to true harmony and perfection. When every subgroup is fighting for itself we get... What we have today. Chaos.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      How, concretely, do you do that?
      - lywald 14y ago
        Simple example: 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. 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.
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        jklp 14y ago
        I don't like doing these kinds of posts but as a counter example: > 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.
        lwhi 14y ago
        All of these examples suggest that the way things are, is a direct example of the way thing should be; that there's some sense and reason for hardships that result from capitalism. 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.
btilly 14y ago
Truism, yet not true! 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.
- tehwebguy 14y ago
  It seems logical to me that putting kids first (or over one's SO) would be a step toward divorce. Disclaimer: Married 4 years, no kids, only speculating.
  - btilly 14y ago
    Get back to me in, oh, 18 years. At your age, I am positive that I would have said the same thing.
- andrewljohnson 14y ago
  I thought about this recently, since I have a 10 week old, and decided for now, wife comes first. Maybe that changes as your kids age.
  - lostlogin 14y ago
    Putting your wife first is putting your baby first at this stage, they are effectively one for the next little while. Good luck.
- mattvanhorn 14y ago
  My parents put each other first and were very clear about it. They knew their kids would move out and have their own life. And they would have only each other at that point. So, while I'm sure my mom would have rationed food to the kids first, in any non-survival situation, she'd side with my dad over me.
  - btilly 14y ago
    In front of the kids, I will support anything my wife says over the kids. Period. That is necessary to avoid having kids try to play one parent against the other. (Any attempt to actually play us against each other ends badly for the kids.) 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.
praptak 14y ago
Perhaps in 1922. Those old farts had it easy back then. They could reasonably expect the delayed reward when they get older, the business repaying their loyalty for all these years. 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.
- lftl 14y ago
  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.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  If they lived to retirement age. 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 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.
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    Keep in mind there was no social security in 1922. And life expectancy actually hasn't risen that much among the poorer classes, eg see http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html Money has lead to health and prosperity for more, but the poor remain in the lot of our ancestors.
lucian303 14y ago
Only a fool would have loyalty to an institution (business) that has no loyalty to him.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by wyclif 14y ago

lwhi 14y ago

It's a romantic notion, but caring about friends, community and society at large needs to factor in somewhere.

zwily 14y ago
Sure they do... after those things. He said "chief loyalty", not "sole loyalty".
- lywald 14y ago
  Putting society above all is the only path to true harmony and perfection. When every subgroup is fighting for itself we get... What we have today. Chaos.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    How, concretely, do you do that?
    - lywald 14y ago
      Simple example: 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. 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.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - jklp 14y ago
        I don't like doing these kinds of posts but as a counter example: > 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.
        lwhi 14y ago
        All of these examples suggest that the way things are, is a direct example of the way thing should be; that there's some sense and reason for hardships that result from capitalism. 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.

btilly 14y ago

Truism, yet not true! 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.

tehwebguy 14y ago
It seems logical to me that putting kids first (or over one's SO) would be a step toward divorce. Disclaimer: Married 4 years, no kids, only speculating.
- btilly 14y ago
  Get back to me in, oh, 18 years. At your age, I am positive that I would have said the same thing.
andrewljohnson 14y ago
I thought about this recently, since I have a 10 week old, and decided for now, wife comes first. Maybe that changes as your kids age.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Putting your wife first is putting your baby first at this stage, they are effectively one for the next little while. Good luck.
mattvanhorn 14y ago
My parents put each other first and were very clear about it. They knew their kids would move out and have their own life. And they would have only each other at that point. So, while I'm sure my mom would have rationed food to the kids first, in any non-survival situation, she'd side with my dad over me.
- btilly 14y ago
  In front of the kids, I will support anything my wife says over the kids. Period. That is necessary to avoid having kids try to play one parent against the other. (Any attempt to actually play us against each other ends badly for the kids.) 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.

praptak 14y ago

Perhaps in 1922. Those old farts had it easy back then. They could reasonably expect the delayed reward when they get older, the business repaying their loyalty for all these years. 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.

lftl 14y ago
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.
dredmorbius 14y ago
If they lived to retirement age. 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 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.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  Keep in mind there was no social security in 1922. And life expectancy actually hasn't risen that much among the poorer classes, eg see http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/workingpapers/wp108.html Money has lead to health and prosperity for more, but the poor remain in the lot of our ancestors.

lucian303 14y ago

Only a fool would have loyalty to an institution (business) that has no loyalty to him.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]