> but you are still responsible for other people.

I couldn't disagree with this any more. I've spent years and years of my life trying to be responsible for other people, trying to make their lives the way I thought they 'should' be -- helping people find jobs, encouraging them to do x/y/z. I'd come into people's lives and it'd be like I walked into an old house: "Let's just fix this here, and that there, and pretty soon you'll be so much better than you were before."

What an utter waste of time for both parties. Turns out I don't know anything about what's best for other people, and hardly what's best for myself. My life has been much less stressful since accepting that. I'll gladly lend a hand to a friend who asks for it -- but the 'responsible for other people' phase of my life is over.

This seems like an extreme interpretation of "responsibility for other people." There are people in my care whom I'm completely aware I cannot mold into shapes of my choice, but for whom I accept the responsibility of keeping them off the street--and therefore, primarily, of keeping myself in adequate condition to keep them off the street. And I agree with GP; that to me feels like a key element of my adulthood. [Edited for grammar]

My father used to say your not an adult until your third child. I think his point was it's not about being independent so much as juggling responsibly when you can't make everyone happy.

this.

i've joked before that parenting 3+ young kids is really just figuring out how to ensure one doesn't get neglected any more or less than the others or that it's switching from man-to-man to zone defense. either way, you reach a point where the time/energy/money required to give your loved ones what they need no longer comes from "you" (your sleep/hobbies/friends), but has to be taken from what you can give your other loved ones as you are already maxed physically/mentally/financially. it's then not a matter of "doing everything you can" anymore, but trying to do the "right things" that you can, and balancing consequences of which are dropped and hoping you can mitigate in future. sometimes it works, sometimes it hurts.

friends will then joke "and that's why i'm never having kids" or "that's why we're only having one", but it's not "worse", just different.

I personally have made a lot of decisions oriented around the inevitability of this dynamic. I let friends fall away after they move across town or just otherwise lose the ability to stop seeing me regularly. I've walked away from commitments where I'd lost every single reason why I'd made the commitment in the first place, I don't do this lightly. I've let myself become estranged from family for the sole reason they didn't adequately value the effort I went to to see them.

One or two children will be all I have, I am never going to start a startup, band, or other such long shot waste of time. I only have so much to give, and I ultimately will always put myself first, because when I put myself first, the quality of what I have to give to the people I truly care about and who care about me goes way up. The people who fall short of that all have their own lives that I am not and never will be responsible for. I've learned this the hard way too many times.

I am so afraid of letting people fall away like you do. I have no idea why. There's something in me that says to keep in touch with everyone. Your way is much more productive.

Just realise that the friends who care about you can come in and out of your life quite freely, without holding any grudges.

Imagine leaving to travel one day, for a year, no contact with anyone. Then imagine who will be excited to see you versus who will be bitter and distant because you left. You don't need the latter.

I am of the view that you should be happy with what time you get with others, because it is a privilege to be thankful for. No one owes you their time, nor do you owe yours to others, and that doesn't have to be a bad thing.

It's hard to close your life off in a healthy way. You have to think hard about things you probably would rather just not think of. Just yesterday a friend of mine miscommunicated with me, causing me to drive 45 mins in rush hour traffic to wait for him in an empty bar for two hours before I went home.

I was livid. I fired off an angry text when he asked me where I was and he chose to argue rather than apologize. In these kinds of situations you have to decide when, why, and how, and whether to cut them off.

I decided that I would use the same rule for him as I do for my lady friends. Always meet somewhere I know and am comfortable with, never somewhere new. That way if they don't show up it's not a total loss. Also never drive anywhere but home, the coffee shop, or my bar right after work. The better and more flexible and more intelligent boundaries you put up, the more and better people you'll bring into your life.

But it takes fearlessness and guts.

What was your friend's excuse for not showing up for the meeting he had set up?

Perhaps another way of interpreting that statement is that you are responsible for not imposing yourself on other people. Assuming "other people" to mean any member of the human race, your interpretation would seem to mean "you are responsible for everyone you have any relationship with or to", which I don't think is what the parent commenter meant.

Some are suggesting that responsibility for others is implied within a family relationship (spouses, children, elderly parents), but I disagree with this interpretation as it would exclude anyone without those relational ties from being recognized socially as an adult. I'm sure there are orphaned, spouse-less, childless people out there whom we would socially consider adults.

This is why charity via direct cash disbursements works. You're trusting that people understand their own situations better than you do, in effect respecting the recipients as adults.

This is very similar to the business and military leadership academic findings across generations that resources and authority should be allocated to those closer to the source of information for greater efficiency and responsiveness as organizations / societies scale. Unfortunately, much of the world seems to believe in a cult of Taylorist management that those that manage and oversee others can best allocate resources because the presumption is that individuals are myopic / too self-important to entrust with potentially catastrophic decisions (this is a false dichotomy even by Taylorist arguments by inductive logic if we now entrust individuals to also be managers with some portion of community resources they manage).

When you help people you should make it clear to them that they need to meet you half-way. If they ask for your help, it should be obvious that if they aren't willing to meet you half way then you aren't responsible for them and are probably hurting them by trying to help.

Reminiscent of the teaching someone to fish. Sometimes I believe mocking was nature's social device to make people reconsider and change their life.

It's also easy to give a hand because you're stuck in your own life. (not implying that was your case, but the actual act is similar)

Don't sell your efforts short...sometimes the advice we give others is, at a minimum, the presentation of potential path(s) a person may choose to follow...

Being given options, or even being made aware that there are options, especially in the case of children, is a gift that can produce amazing outcomes...

How many of us have been given direction, even if unknowingly, by a single sentence uttered by someone trying to "help"? (e.g., "you're really good at organizing things, solving problems, etc...)

Individuals are often not very good at identifying their best, and most marketable, talents...sometimes others can offer perspective...

Maybe this is better stated as: you are still responsible for your effects on other people. You don't need to feel responsibility for every little thing everyone else does, but to the extent that you hurt someone else, it's on you to make it right.

I like this MUCH better, you are responsible for yourself and the results of the choices you make and actions you take. That combination, once internalized, qualifies you to be an adult.

As a parent consider seeking out activities for your kids that will give them an opportunity to live that experience (ideally in a safe way) so that they will understand what is expected of them.

Darn. You're right. It is better stated that way.

It's a balancing act. As a kid the group has a natural reaction to support you, they like it because you're a kid and you like it because that's how it's been since you started to breath.

Depending on the person, it can be hard to sense how much it is part of your life, but at one point the adult around won't feel as good to support you, they also realize you are 'like them' and should be able to deal with it and they don't have to bear your cross. You also start to empathize a lot more with people and don't feel good whining or asking for help too much as you see that they faced and face the same issue. So the situation level out, or it should.

ps: btw, I really wish society would spend a little more time conveying this information. It has very large implications in you and your loved ones life. I also believe that previous eras and/or societies had a clearer path (rites of passage) whereas right now it feels like an existential free-market where you're too easily able to wander around for too long instead of swallowing the pill.

This is my personal definition as a sole bread-winner and father to three children and a stay-at-home-mother.

Now you know what stress is.

I don't know about "for" other people, but definitely "to." The obvious example is showing up to work because it's expected of you, but more generally it's about keeping commitments. Socially, your health, personal goals etc.

You certainly are not responsible for other people. If you can't see others as beings with equal rights, meaning you don't naturally treat people the way you would like to be treated, you are a sociopath. You are a danger to others and you are why we have a justice system to take such people out of our society.

You should not live for other people and other people do not have to live for you. For me being an adult is more about that balance.

Yeah, definitely send that kid out as soon as they can walk. They have equal rights, and you should not live for them. Throw your elderly mother off into the streets too. Don't even bother walking her to the nursing home, that's her own problem. You do not live for her and it was certainly her problem she lived for you when you yourself were a kid. It's about balance as an adult.

Love is selfish, I take care of my loved ones for selfish reasons and it feels good. It makes them feel good as well, to be loved by someone who wants them to feel good, not to please them, not to please my family, not to do what my culture wants or out of guilt but to be loved sincerely, because it make me feel good. Taking care of them is taking care of myself.

What you described is called being responsible for yourself and others, and responsible feels good, because it is good, by good meaning having utility, as determined by natural processes.

I don't like your previous comment because it can mislead people into doing something irresponsible even when it doesn't feel good because they think they should only be responsible for themselves and not others.

So you are saying, all human beings somehow are responsible for the happiness (we didn't define what they are responsible for but I'll assume happiness/well being) of all others? Where do you draw the line? Why are you not giving more of your salary to poor people? Who determines what is enough giving? Can I hold you responsible? Or, who can? Or do you perhaps I agree that you may feel responsible but you can't be held responsible... In which case your are not responsible (claiming one is responsible for others is the statement I originally responded to). One can take responsibility for the well being of other, this can feel good. One does not have this responsibility implicitly. Or at least I strongly believe one should not.

Example: What is a more desirable situation?

A persons taking responsibility for a child out of a deep feeling that it is good of a person feeling forced into taking care of a child because of cultural pressures? (Arguably) The child of person 2 is better off when someone is found that feels natural responsibility for him/her.

Luckily most parents feel strong responsibility for the well being of their offspring. For those that don't, we have adoption agencies and other methods to help. Generally our society believes it to be more moral that people can give their child away than to force them into a responsibility they don't want (or know they can't handle). So we already believe, even for our own children, that responsibility is yours to take, not something you have by default and needs to be forced upon you. Forced responsibility is not love, it is anti-love, it will lead to sick relationships.

So to come back to the original post: Being adults is about taking responsibility, not about complying to some culture enforce role model that is responsible for others. You can not be forced into taking responsibility (meaning you don't somehow have it) but if you don't take it, you'll end up nowhere (you'll be a homeless person or in jail.)

You're right, human beings tend to be naturally responsible because they tend to feel that way. It is important to nurture these feelings, and take responsibility with those who you feel you ought to, rather than ignoring it. It is important people are aware that these feelings are good and should be nurtured, as opposed to feelings you get when doing something that's harmful to yourself and others (e.g. drugs & cheating on your wife/husband), and those feelings should be ignored.

A certain statement like "You certainly are not responsible for other people.", is misleading and unhelpful because it suggests people who are tempted by relationships outside the home should go ahead and pursue them, even if it means feeling bad for being irresponsible towards your children and family.

Your point is you are being responsible because it makes you feel good, taking these feelings for granted. Yes, nature gives them to us to begin with, but they must also be nurtured. Between the good dog and the evil wolf in all our hearts, the one that wins is the one we feed.

"A certain statement like "You certainly are not responsible for other people.", is misleading and unhelpful because it suggests people who are tempted by relationships outside the home should go ahead and pursue them, even if it means feeling bad for being irresponsible towards your children and family."

For me that falls under taking responsibility for my own life. If I were to be constantly tempted it would be a signal something is wrong. I'd discuss this with my partner. Perhaps we should break up. The alternative is staying with him/her out of pity. Pity is not love, staying with someone out of pity is worse than leaving them imo. If my partner was constantly tempted but staying with me out of pity it would be the ultimate insult. I want my partner to be with me out of pure self-interest, because I'm the best choice, her favorite human being, her ultimate partner, the best she can get. I don't want to be a compromise.

I think that there is even a case to be made that leaving while you have children is better for them than keeping them in an unhappy marriage. You are certainly not giving a good show of what love is all about.

I do agree about the feeding, you certainly have the power to feed and deprive certain feelings.

It looks like we more or less agree, and the point of disagreement is the components of love, of which I think there are two: attraction and companionship. It is possible for a 50 year old husband to feel tempted to sleep with an attractive 25 year old who is trying to seduce him, while feeling deep love towards his 50 year old wife, who is now a lot less attractive than when he married her. He can feel tempted to cheat but at the same time feel bad about betraying his wife. Should they divorce? I'd argue in many cases, no.

I'd not, but my self-interest is rational, I'd never risk loosing the companionship of my wife who's intelligence I admire, who I find a great mother and a great enrichment of my life. I guess we do agree. As I said, perhaps I tend to harp to much on the ethics of rational self-interest. I tended to ignore my own needs in relationships, the works of Ayn Rand were a big eye opener.

So, in your world, someone who perhaps cares too much about others' welfare is a dangerous sociopath who should be thrown in prison?

Okay!

I was responding to his reductio ad absurdum which is indeed valid if it is not balanced by the realization that others are equal, it should not (have to) be balanced by needing to be responsible for other people. You are not responsible for others, but they are deserving of your respect, as long as they respect you. I'd also rather have people do something for me because it makes them feel good than because they somehow feel responsible. I think you are misinterpreting my statement. And maybe I read to much Ayn Rand ;)