Not granting the earned

Rand spends some time in her writings on ethics dealing with the wrongness of claiming unearned values. I've not read Rand's entire corpus of literature, but I don't recall coming across any discussion of a concept that seems to me to be the "flip side" of the same coin - failing to grant values that have been earned.

A simple example of this would be refusing to pay for work that has been done, a more complicated example might be where Person A, acting from benevolence and loyalty, does a number of favours to help his dear friend Person B; and Person B subsequently refuses to reciprocate when Person A could use some assistance (the situation would of course be different if Person B genuinely wanted to help, but was prevented by having to deal with an emergency or some other crisis). The first example seems fairly straightforward and is conceivably a breach of contract, the second is perhaps more complicated as there is of course no right to favours performed, but I am sure that were I in Person A's position I would feel rather aggrieved to say the least.

I would greatly appreciate some thoughts on this, specifically whether I am correct to view the concept in this way and whether both of the above examples do fall into this category. Alternatively if there is some discussion of this by Rand or another Objectivist I would be grateful for the reference.

Thanks
MH

Post 1

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 2:58pm

LOL...Guess no one's interested in this thread then?

Post 2

Friday, July 9, 2004 - 11:02pm

Matthew,

This isn't explicitly Randian, but it may help:

Game Theory research shows that interactions governed by the "Tit-For-Tat" principle have always dominated all the other strategies. The ("while standing on one foot") fundamental principle of Tit-For-Tat is:

Don't defect first, and otherwise, reciprocate in kind.

If the moral is the practical, then defecting in any manner, INCLUDING WITHHOLDING EARNED VALUEs, is immoral.

Ethical egoism, trade, and good will - taken as an inseparable triplet - have no equal as a principle to govern human affairs.

Ed

Post 3

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 12:35pm

Hi Ed,

Thanks very much for your thoughts on this :-) I see things the same way really, though I wouldn't have put them in quite those terms. I think it is certainly implicit in Rand's philosophy, even if she didn't make it explicit somewhere or other - and it may well be that I'm overlooking something she did write, or I just haven't read it.

Cheers,
MH

Post 4

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 2:42pm

Matthew,

Here's a statement in Rand's terms which is probably just review; but still quite relevant (caps added):

" ... every man must be judged for what he is AND TREATED ACCORDINGLY, ..."

Ed

Post 5

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 5:57am

Hi Matthew,

I don't recall coming across any discussion of a concept that seems to me to be the "flip side" of the same coin - failing to grant values that have been earned.

Seems like you're talking about mooches here. Mooches are the people who fail to grant values that have been earned, no? And we all know that Rand has plenty to say about mooches.

Jordan

Post 6

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 3:25pm

I meant to answer this when you first posted, MH. But somehow I got distracted.

There's two approaches to what you're asking for. One is a view of justice in which you try to make sure those who you've benefitted from are well compensated. There's not much said on this topic, and maybe for good reason. Because of things like the harmony of interests, our lives are constantly improved by the people around us. You can't go and thank every last person on the planet who you benefit from. The practical result is probably more of a general benevolence towards your fellow man (with exceptions for those who don't deserve it), and specific action only in extreme cases.

The second, which is more popular in the Objectivist ethics, is the view of personal independence. This covers ideas like the trader principle. It's a more personal approach. To take pride in your own life, it has to be yours. So you pay your debts, and earn your rewards, so you can know that you've gotten where you are by earning it. This is the approach Jordan mentions with the moochers. And I think there's a bit of writing on this approach among Objectivists.

Post 7

Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 4:31pm

Ed, Jordan, Joe,

Thanks very much to you all! Most of the above is familiar but I'd just not thought through the relevance to this topic. I didn't have anything particular in mind when I posted the original message but thinking about it now, I have occasionally found myself feeling a little pissed off at non-Objectivist friends when I've thought that past loyalty and support on my part wasn't being fully reciprocated. Not surprisingly, they are altruists :-)

Thanks again.
MH

Post 8

Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 2:16pm

Matthew Humphrey's wrote:

I have occasionally found myself feeling a little pissed off at non-Objectivist friends when I've thought that past loyalty and support on my part wasn't being fully reciprocated. Not surprisingly, they are altruists :-)

My $0.02 worth:

Not that you implied it, but by all means Matthew you are not alone in this regard. I too have been more than a little pissed off at non-Objectivists by similar actions and behaviors that you have addressed in this thread. In fact, personally one of the largest pet peeves of mine is when people are inconsistent (i.e when there actions, behaviors and words don't exactly equate or jive with one another). In addition, what I struggle with a lot is that in these instances is it best just to grin-n-bear it, sever one's ties with this person, or attempt to constructively try and point out to this other person the discrepancies of their behavior/words/actions? Obviously the answer to this question depends a great deal on the two people, the situation, and the alleged offense, etc.

Matt

Post 9

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 2:46pm