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 ;)