This is not to say that there do not exist similarities between the two that can be applied to both. But it is to say, that the context of the two is differentiated enough as to make direct comparison weak at best. The rational egoist knows a lot of things Luther, among the things he knows is that love is not a static quantity. As such, love has a history, a development, an evolution, and a lasting un-quantifiable quality that cannot be measured in the same manner as one does a pound of coffee.

It is not that love cannot be measured, because it can be. However, there is a psychological process here that is unique. A positive value derived from a source of pleasure that in itself is not a static quantity, for we are speaking here of 'human' relationships. Remember what Ayn Rand said, “The concept love, subsumes a vast range of values, and consequently intensity: it extends from the lowest levels (designated by the subcategory “liking”) to the higher levels (designated to the subcategory “affection” which is applicable only in regards to persons) to the highest levels which includes romantic love.”

The very terminology you are using is one that completely drops the unique context of the family/human relationship. What was it you said, “The rational egoist will judge all relationships, "family" or not, on the basis of the net value those relationships deliver to him.  Once his sound reasoning tells him the long range net value of a given relationship will run "in the red," the rational egoist thanks the person in question for the values thus far delivered, then terminates that relationship without apology, compromise, discussion, consideration or argument.” What the hell is that!

Look, I am not speaking here of the ‘exceptional’ case either, such as the relative that is a dangerous criminal, I am speaking of the typical. Does one dismiss a devoutly religious sister, with whom one shares very few if any philosophical similarities on that sole basis? You know the type, the pain in the ass pontificator whose greatest single attribute is the ability to annoy (please - no leaps to Jim Jones for analogies). Least we forget, to dismiss her is to dismiss ones nephews and nieces as well.

Under your parameters one would, one would say, thanks for the memories sis – goodbye forevermore. But what of that sister laugh, sister’s smile, sister’s touch, sister’s reminiscing, sister’s walk, that sister face that mirrors ones own; none of these things fit within a measurable long-range net value as you say, at least not as you expressed them. But tell me that to seek these out is not a virtue? Tell me Luther, tell me at what point one should as you say, "terminate" this relationship?

George

PS: Let no one be confused, there are relatives which I have completely eliminated from my life. That said, there  is a certain quality in the what Luther said, a certain detached quality to it - that rubbed me the wrong way.  
 

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/08, 9:46pm)

Luke’s approach in family relations may appear to be too analytical, but I believe it has a lot of merit. (Though I cringe at his charts too).

A lot of posts in this thread strike me as very sentimental. Nothing’s wrong with it. But I think we can rationalize our feelings towards our family members and close friends, be it love, affection, kinship on one hand, or frustration and even loathe on the other, .

I am currently living with my parent-in-laws, or more correctly they live with us. They have been living on and off with us during last few years, and currently they have been with us for 8 months, and still will stay a few more months until the summer. (Yeah, I know I am a saint. The language barrier helps a lot too). I constantly try to objectively evaluate their values to me, to my son, and my husband. Such unemotional evaluation helps a great deal in maintaining my own sanity.

With my own parents, I used to be very rebellious in my teens and twenties. But I felt I was bounded by my debt to them because they raised me. And I felt guilty for some of my feelings toward them. As soon as I became financially independent, I sent them the first 500 dollars I saved in a symbolic gesture that I could now pay them back with money if not with my obedience and love.

However, as I get older and both my parents are now in their seventies, I am completely at peace with them. I not longer expect them to be as wise and smart as I had so much wished them to be. One thing I know for sure is that they love me, always have, to their best abilities. I thus love them for what they really are to me, no more, and no less.

I think I’ve also reached a very sentimental age nowadays, that I think about my parents a lot and keep imagining things from the bits and pieces that I heard over the years. I have decided to learn more about them, about their own parents, their family, and their youth. Perhaps, a better understanding of them as individuals will help me to rationalize their behavior as well as how I feel about them.

 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/09, 10:58am)

If every time you see someone or talk to them you feel angry or depressed for a couple of days, perhaps you shouldn't see them anymore, even if they are family. I think that is what Luther means by "net negative" value or "in the red". The fact that it's a rational decision certainly doesn't make it a bad thing.