Nobody lives in a vacuum. We have the ability to define our place in society and how social or non-social we choose to be. Each person is free to choose their level and to change that level from time to time. Social attributes weigh in that decision to various degrees. Mr. Mulligan lacks compassion. It is his choice to do so. In real life I know people who lack compassion. I don’t hate them but I don’t like them either. They inspire me with apathy. If someone who has a similar personality has a mishap I don’t care. I don’t visit them at the hospital or send them cards, and they honestly may have not cared that I did. People who lack compassion mean as little to me as I do to them.
With Mr. Mulligan If I needed a lone and he wanted to give one (from his bank) we could do business. If I had a business need of his we could do business. If he got a flat tire and was late to an important meeting and asked me for a ride he would be wasting my time. If he gets cancer and is in the hospital he should except me to show-up to provide him with support. He is outside of society and outside of the people I would feel inclined to help by his choice—and by his choice alone. Somebody I perceived as compassionate wouldn’t be wasting my time. The difference is that I place value in the society as a whole and even if that person helps me in the future the idea that they contribute to the society gives me perceived in that person. \
There is nothing wrong with Mr. Mulligan doing what he is doing. I don’t see any reason to dislike or hate that person based on his philosophy of life, but if he is stingy on the favors, and un-inclined to help others when they need it, he hope hopefully realize he is at the end of the list of people I or most others would feel inclined to help if they were in need.
I don’t think what he does is wrong, not by a long shot, but I do think it creates the paradigm that others, like myself will have a harder time justifying supporting that person if they have a need that there money can’t fix. Mr. (name) may be happy with the choice, and a reader of Atlas Shrugged may feel that idea applies to them to. They should just realize you beget what you give. If you lack compassion it would be unrealistic to expect it in return. That applies, to friendships, relationships, family ect. If one is ok with that, than maybe that is the right choice for them, if they are not ok with it maybe they should re-evaluate. I feel they have the right to make their choice on this though, and wouldn’t call it immoral.
In regards to the second part: ""Yes, the man who uses another mans pity for him as a weapon against him." I would concur with that thought but need more time to elaborate on that.
