What about the people that are committed and offset the external obstacles? Or remain committed even when there is no obvious payoff? What is their secret?
For me, one thing I've committed to that addresses this question is being a vegetarian. There is no external obligation for my decision. I can certainly afford to buy meat. I don't have any dietary issues. I actually love the taste of a good filet. I chose to go vegetarian about 5 years ago and have stuck to it since, for the most part. I've never thrown out my commitment. I have been tempted by external factors, ie. H is NOT vegetarian and eats meat in front of me. Heck, I even cook it for him and S. There hasn't been any measurable payoff, like I feel so great and healthy I want to climb a mountain. Fresh vegetables are not cheap, and I need to make a point to eat some odd things I might not normally eat to get the proper nutrition.
So what keeps me committed? (I'm really not looking for a debate on vegetarianism, just using it as an example of commitment.)
There are a number of reasons I decided to in the first place, such as dietary health reasons, but since I still eat M&M's and chocolate chip cookies, that certainly isn't a primary dietary force for me. The primary reason is probably the humane treatment of the animals in the commercial industry, and the fact that the animal has to be killed to eat it, vs. eggs and milk which are by-products. Again, I'm not looking to debate, just saying it's important to me and WHY I'm committed.
Now, since there aren't any chickens knocking on my door handing me a bouquet of roses in thanks for not eating them, and my vegetarianism hasn't single-handedly impacted the meat-farming industry, what is the payoff?
For me, it's simply the feeling that I'm doing the right thing.
Animals are lesser creatures. As humans, we have a responsibility to treat them humanely. I don't need to look the chicken in the eye and set it free to know that I've at least eliminated to the need to kill the chicken on my behalf. I know that. It makes me feel good. There is a need that I am meeting, and it's a need that can't be met by someone else. If I eat a chicken, the chicken must be killed. No one else can step in and change that.
Now, forgetting all the vegetarian mumbo-jumbo, how does that apply to people? Well it's easy to transition to parenting. I don't feel obligated to parent my son. I'm committed, it's something I WANT to do, something I chose to do. There are no obstacles in life that will change that commitment for me, short of incapacitation or death. Part of that commitment comes from the fact that he NEEDS me to parent him. He is a "lesser" creature in that he is young and not fully capable on his own, and I know I am doing a good thing by filling that roll. When he grows, that commitment will change with him. His NEEDS won't be the same. I am not committed to providing him food and shelter for all of his life, and I won't. I will still love him, but our R will be different.
Now this is where I lose it.
What should my commitment to my H be based upon? He is not a lesser creature. He is perfectly capable of meeting his own needs in most areas of life. Even sex could be performed by someone else. I don't feel like I'm doing something noble because I cook him dinner. The action itself provides no value to me, I'm actually not a big fan of cooking. I can see that S growing up in a two-parent household is a good thing and I'm committed to that, until he's grown. Then what? I'm sure he would always like his parents to be together, but he'll be off focused on his own life and family. That just means the D would need to be amicable.
What does one base a commitment to M on when there is no NEED, there is no ENJOYMENT, and there is no PAYOFF?
