[cornelis]

Here’s the problem with Galtism. He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery. Why would that be slavery? Because he has conflated the good with the human person. That is not Christianity.

[dinoparty]

Right on, brother.

The Christian view is that true slavery is slavery to one’s own merely human wants and desires.

[NativeNewYorker]

He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery.

He can't do good UNDER COMPULSION for another. That's the key. He can CHOOSE to WILLINGLY do whatever he wishes. But doing so at the point of a gun IS slavery.

[gov_bean_ counter]

I don't think Galt had a problem with doing things for those who couldn't do for themselves. His problem was doing thing for people who wouldn't do for themselves out of some sense of entitlement to the wealth of others.

[EBH]

He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery. Why would that be slavery?

I look forward to your help with healthcare. I understand it in the context of Atlas Shrugged, which is the secular idea of doing good verses the biblical doing good. One is the handout that leads to enslavement, the other is the handup that leads to freedom. Secular good to Galt is very different from the idea of Natural Law good.

Many who read Atlas Shrugged misunderstand the term of "good" as used in the storyline.

[mnehring]

He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery.

O'contraire, the slavery is the delusion of altruism, that one can do good with no self-benefit. If one is honest about their self-interest in 'doing good' then they don't become a slave to others' manipulation to 'do good for them'.

[Pessimist]

“He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery”

Not really. When reardon made better steel, it benefitted all. So too w/ Galt’s motor.

[BfloGuy]

Here’s the problem with Galtism. He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery. Why would that be slavery?

That's a typical mis-interpretation of Rand. Objectivism certainly does not forbid doing good for another person -- it simply states that it isn't man's highest moral purpose. The moral requirement that serving others is the purpose of life would, indeed, be slavery.

It's so tiring reading opinions of Rand based on second-hand knowledge.

[Hank Kerchief]

“He can’t do good for another because he thinks doing good is slavery.”

Ahh.. would you care to source that absurd statement.

Perhaps you never read Atlas. If you had you might recall the passage in which Francisco risks his life saving the life of Hank Reardon. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Hank

[ichabod1]

Why should *I* give to you? Why not *you* give to me? Why should *you* have any claim on *my* resources? If *you* are too shiftless and lazy to get a job, why should you not die and stop wasting air and food? See, the looter/moocher mentality has gone so far now that the virtuous ARE required to die to free up resources for the moochers. It is SICK.