Yaron Answers: What's The Difference Between Altruism And Benevolence?

Yaron Brook answers a question from Robert: "What's the difference between altruism and benevolence?"
---
Subscribe to our KZbin channel: / @aynrandinstitute
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.
We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
Explore ARI: www.AynRand.org
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Like ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute

[@What_If_We_Tried]

YARON: This is your BEST comparison and contrast between altruism, and benevolence. In fact, I think it is the CLEAREST clarification I have ever heard from any Objectivist. Thank-you so very much.

[@avidfilmbuff7830]

It’s amazing how often critics of Rand insist that she was opposed to kindness, compassion, and generosity despite the fact she explained several times that this was not what she meant when she was talking about altruism.

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

Its only when against one's own free will.

[@mepemcl]

It's not helping people that is bad. What's bad is a culture & morality that says helping others is a moral obligation & helping yourself as evil, regardless of who you are helping in what way. Rational self-interest means to focus on individual rights & good values. One of those good values is to value your family/kin, loved ones, friends, & all fellow humans.

[@Attritive]

Great comment. Altruism is a rationalization for enslavement.

[@bigmouthstrikesagain4056]

Altruism is a scam... a scam as old as civilization itself.and we've been falling for it ever since then... now we as individuals must choose... are we gonna keep falling for it like suckers or are we going to wake up to the fact we're bieng fleeced?

[@Heraclitean]

Enlightened self-interest and enlightened other-interest are virtually identical in their practical implications. The key is the enlightenment.

[@swmorgan515]

Right... because a RATIONAL self-interest is objective, therefore implying that the same value and free action you assume for yourself, all others deserve.

[@authoritarianismaengussong]

We should be grateful to Dr. Brook for calling our attention to the distinction between altruism and benevolence. I am concerned, however, that some of his presentation's listeners may be confused by the seeming baselessness of altruism as Brook describes it, because he does not mention the deeper premises that provide this ethic with its logical foundations. This seems to be a common oversight with Objectivist critiques of altruism, and it has the unfortunate effect of making Objectivist intellectuals look like philosophical ingenues. Although there are several different philosophical hypotheses that provide the self-sacrificial ethics with their justificatory underpinnings, the most prevalent of these is what may be referred to as the "organic theory" of humanity. This doctrine says that all human beings are really one human being-one organism-with each apparent individual merely having the status of a "cell" in a living body. Just as the cells in an organism are properly expected to serve the interests of the living body of which they are part, so organic theory implies that individuals are morally bound to serve the greater self which is humanity conceived of as a single person. When Auguste Comte-the French philosopher who coined the term "altruism"-wrote of serving others, he did not intend that "others" be understood as individual people in need. Rather, he meant "others" in a singular sense: Other. For, according to Comte's version of organic theory, there is only one human being. And this is why "your life is not your own." This is why you have a moral duty to take care of and serve the interest of "Other." Understood in this light altruism makes a certain amount of sense, for it is unquestionably the moral duty of a cell or a hand or a foot to serve the greater self of which it is just a part. If a part of your body declared its interests equal to your own, and went off and began doing whatever it pleased, you'd be incensed. So society conceived of as a single individual is incensed when you refuse it selfless service and sacrifice. And these are not just abstruse abstractions. The reason it is important to understand the various theories of self-sacrificial altruism in their entirety is that only by calling attention to and uprooting their deeper premises can these doctrines be defeated in a technical philosophical sense. Destroying an ethical theory's foundations renders the theory logically groundless and thereby reduces it to philosophical nonsense. To eradicate altruism completely, Objectivist intellectuals must eradicate its philosophical underpinnings, not just denounce its malevolence as an ethic.

[@mepemcl]

But not equally. You should value your neighbor's family even starving people halfway across the world that you've never met. But you should put your own self & family first. It's generally healthy for you to do so. And you have a moral obligation to take good care of your children. You don't have a moral obligation to buy your neighbor's kids Christmas presents. If you have extra $ with nothing else to spend it on, then it's ok to find an efficient charity to help 3rd world ppl develop

[@Attritive]

Benevolent means a positive attitude, usually in regards to your fellow men. Altruistic means giving up a greater value for a lesser value as the highest moral principle. How does neither definition apply?

[@jameshicks8454]

As they say on an airline, "Don your oxygen mask before you put on your child's".

[@savvageorge]

Should you also help other kids with their masks as well?

[@michaelmasztal9486]

Well put. You should send this to Craig Biddle who doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between benevolence and altruism.

[@Attritive]

The Christian notion of benevolence is Jesus' particular form of benevolence, i.e., turning the other cheek, the nobility of the 'meek', the inherent evil of the rich and this earth which they dominate, sacrificing his perfect life for the sake of a rotten humanity. In Christianity, benevolence and altruism are the same. Unfortunately, thinking doesn't make it so: in reality, altruism leads to disdain of others and misery in life.

[@michaelmasztal9486]

In my numerous readings and KZbin posts of Biddle, he conflates altruism and benevolence regarding Christianity. While some Christians may think that altruism, as Yaron correctly defined it, is a form of spirituality, such is not the case for most of Christianity. Hence he commits the fallacy of composition. His references to portions of the Bible are also either misrepresented or misunderstood. I’m happy to see Yaron concisely define and differentiate the two terms.

[@Attritive]

Claiming that there is some mystical reward for sacrifice doesn't change the nature of the action; objectively you're giving away something for nothing, for a fantasy (sacrificing). If you're going to have an earthly standard, you can't throw the earth away for mystical promises; if you're going to have a mystical standard, you can't throw heaven away for the sake of earthly rewards. Why are you trying to have it both ways?

[@lwgg742]

This is why it doesn't make you happy to be an altruist. You might be doing things for others - Jesus, Gandhi, etc., they are good examples of this -, but your personal life will suck. We've seen all the famous altruists throughout history have a very painful personal life.

[@Attritive]

Maybe so, from a theological perspective (you can't prove Jesus was anything more than a man from a rational perspective). But this doesn't change the fact that his actions exemplified sacrifice for the sake of others, and his words were almost exclusively commands to sacrifice on principle. 2k years of theology are behind me on this.

[@ThomasTheIdealist]

Well-stated. I like how Ayn Rand compared the altruistic interactions of men "like an exchange of unwanted, unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permitted to buy for himself." That paired with the resentment that derived from such behavior provides a compelling argument against altruism.

[@michaelmasztal9486]

I didn’t say Biddle thinks benevolence is only altruistic. As Yaron noted, benevolence isn’t altruistic. What I’m saying is Biddle incorrectly conflates the two terms when it applies to Christianity. I’ve been a Christian for the last 27 of my 57 years. I’ve never felt what Yaron would call “altrusim” toward others. Benevolence, on the other hand is different and common.

[@walterdennisclark]

Theoretically, altruistic people should feel just as obligated to sacrifice to someone richer than they are as to someone poorer. The fact that that is never the case shows that altruism is merely another word for egalitarianism.The reason this substitution is dangerous to society is that it hides redistribution behind the nobility of sacrifice. The purpose of those who promote altruism is to get those who are forced to support strangers (through taxes) to not object on moral grounds.

[@michaelmasztal9486]

Excellent!!

[@DavidSmith-pn8ll]

Saved

[@looper2586]

The ability for self-interests to compete with one another is a prerequisite for cooperation. Altruism denies the possibility for cooperation since it denies the possibility for competition and conficts between self-interests. The purpose of altruism is peace which comes at the price of entirely submiting one's self-interest to others'. That way one's self-interest is always aligned with the other's self-interest to the point of sacrificing one's self-interest completely if need be. So basically altruism advocates peace to the point of total self-sacrifice and self-abnegation. The only thing as unbalanced is the opposite which is usually understood by people as "selfishness" in its derogatory sense, which is the ability by an individual to sacrifice others' vital interest for marginal and very superficial gains. It is in a way the story of the relationship between the masochist and the sadist, each fulfilling their role as the sacrificial animal and the sacrificer. That is basically the insanity in which I have been living for 30 years until I started waking up from it recently.. Thanks Ayn for being among those that light us the way..

[@Attritive]

There's no need for that division? How does one 'richly understand' things then? Through a joint effort, some sort of mind-meld?

[@michaelmasztal9486]

Jesus was not merely a “man”. To ascribe only human attributes to him is incomplete.

[@timbo465]

I'm no Christian, but the Bible illustrates Jesus as an altruist. He sacrificed his own life for the good of others.

[@LiradeTerpsichore]

yes, Michael

[@spilledfeed]

This is one of the best breakdowns i have ever listen to on this subject.

[@LiradeTerpsichore]

According to Swedenborg's text, the teaching here proclaimed is exactly the same as teaching people that the aim of their cities, are the foundations of the houses. And is the same as a man who finds that the foundation of his house, is the aim of having a house. :) you may not see it, but it is equally absurd and exact :)

[@Attritive]

Would you call Jesus benevolent or altruistic?

[@coreygraham860]

@pneumatictrousers What is it about "mutual benefit" and "shared values" that you find arrogant?

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

Corey Graham the ones which were imposed on an individual.

[@Heraclitean]

Looking out for yourself, richly understood, involves caring about others and being regularly other-oriented. If you put others first, you value their objective interests - and their objective interests, richly understood, entail that you realize your own potential and live happily. That is, it's in ~their~ interest that ~you~ be sufficiently self-concerned. There's no need for a sharp division between self and others in ethics.

[@laurencelewin7648]

Empathy evolved in a Darwinian fashion that favors those individuals and their communities who react, emotionally, to the needs of others. Altruism, as a compulsion, is as described, but "benevolence" is the apologist's rationalization of personal greed, material accumulation. Both are products of Darwinian evolution. Squirrels collect nuts, well beyond their needs, and benevolence doesn't exist in their society, but materialism does. Benevolence can't be demonstrated in an experiment in the laboratory. Empathy can. Without the developed empathy genetically embedded into the mammalian female, the infant would not survive. Try benevolence, or altruism in the same situation. It's empathy that works.

[@OfficialSharkbite]

I’m subscribed pls give a shout out to Crosby Texas at Crosby middle school

[@michaelmasztal9486]

"Christianity is an evil delusion “ What a foolish statement. But I guess that is what Rand would say and as a devout, fundamental, Randian zealot have no choice but to repeat.

[@Shozb0t]

When you say "If you put others first" who do you mean by "others," specifically?

[@federicoguerrero7365]

Others = NOT You

[@Shozb0t]

Could you give examples of each to elaborate?

[@michaelmasztal9486]

Jesus came to redeem his people for his own sake and own glory. That is a "selfish" act. He didn’t remain dead. Additionally, you need to better parse “evil” as you conflate “evil” with sinful.

[@LiradeTerpsichore]

Is that how you did since you have food and comfort, to the ones who don't?

[@Attritive]

I don't understand your first question. Apparently yes, since Jesus is viewed (rightly so) as an altruist and (wrongly) as the only perfect human being. People can think all sorts of things. Yes, Jesus remained dead (unless you're talking about the common fantasy, then you're right). Jesus' main purpose was to sacrifice his perfect life to save the souls of intrinsically evil beings (according to theology; personally, I think Jesus was evil).

[@michaelmasztal9486]

Jesus also claimed that he came so man may have life and have it abundantly cf Jn10:10. Benevolence is the driving force behind Christian giving. The Bible also teaches "Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” 2 Cor 9.7. That some factions in Christianity might find virtue in self sacrifice, i.e., Mother Teresa, but to ascribe that motive to all of Christianity is the composition fallacy. Not very rational, is it?

[@Attritive]

So you're saying benevolence isn't necessarily altruistic, while Biddle thinks benevolence is only altruistic? I haven't seen this from him, although I haven't read much of his work.

[@Attritive]

That attack is a major focal point of her philosophy (if not THE major point). I think you're missing something.

[@Attritive]

Read her biographies? What do I care about her life or her as a person? I agree with the ideas she puts forth, like I agree with Aristotle, Locke, and others. But if ad hominem makes you feel like your delusions are legit, go for it. Real smart.

[@michaelmasztal9486]

Neither definition applies.

[@kac1160]

Yeah one is work the other is play, playing at work though?

[@michaelmasztal9486]

Maybe you’re missing something. Our objections are nothing new. Read any of Rand’s biographies and you’ll discover these issues were a major point of contention by her critics which were never successfully defended.

[@michaelmasztal9486]

You guys crack me up with your thinking. What do you believe about the origin of the universe? It is a belief since you were not there to witness it. Since you didn’t witness it and there is no proof of what/how it happened and many theories abound, can you state your belief with any certainty and not be ridiculed by anyone with a differing theory? It must be nice living in Rand’s simplistic world of fiat axioms and never thinking or challenging anything she taught. Not very reasonable.

[@Attritive]

There was no origin to the universe. That's a contradiction in terms.

[@bilalhamurabi3362]

What if you dont have a self interest like i.e. ppl who find out they cant get children and di stuff for strangers they dont need to?

[@Attritive]

Why do you think that about Craig Biddle?

[@mepemcl]

But first make sure you really have the extra resources. Do you have children or grandchildren of your own that need help, or some close friend or family that you care about that needs help? Do you have goals you want to achieve like go back to college or change careers? Have you saved enough for retirement & medical expenses? Are you healthy, or is there some way you could improve your health (mental emotional physical etc)?

[@Attritive]

You believe a guy rose from the dead because it says so in a book. Don't tell me what to parse.

[@Attritive]

I actually thought that before I even knew of Ayn Rand. So have many others, some of them existing before Rand was even born. Maybe I'm not the one stuck in a little box, eh pal?

[@SexDrugsFinance]

I wish the Randians would just drop their attack on altruism. It's a strawman and a blemish on the Rand's otherwise decent philosophy.

[@mepemcl]

It depends on the charity & what are the alternatives. Is it a charity that gets results? Do they save lives & enable sustainable economic development? In some cases it's more productive & helps the most people in long-term & reduces suffering, to invest in technology or economic development or research. Your values affect what charities you might donate to like research, medical aid, animal welfare, 3rd world poverty, refugee aid, ecnomic development, individual rights, etc

[@LiradeTerpsichore]

I might agree with you on this. hahahaha

[@Attritive]

Christianity means something specific. This doesn't prevent people like you from going to mental loops to rationalize your evil ideology with your worldly-oriented life, sometimes by dropping certain elements of the ideology. I agree with that, and never argued anything to the contrary. Where's the 'composition'? I asked you why you're trying to have it both ways, and you say it's a false dichotomy. Impossible conversation with a rationalist. Bye.

[@joe-y4o5y]

Altruism; the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. I think Yaron sets up strawmen to knock down.

[@LiradeTerpsichore]

Agree. That must be why they're always talking so much of reason ;) hahahaha They use it so little :D

[@michaelmasztal9486]

As an atheist, you don’t get to tell me what Christianity is or is not. You have a sophomoric understanding of Christianity just as Biddle does. Your opinion has no validity to me in this matter. Nor would I expect you to give my opinion on Objectivism any weight.

[@Attritive]

Watch out! "Mr. Brain-washed" might rub off on you!

[@michaelmasztal9486]

FIrst, save the lame hyperbole, i.e., “fantasy”, “mystical”. You also seem to propose a false dichotomy on your “earthly” vs “heavenly” standards example. I don’t understand your point here.

[@niklasmolen4753]

Yaron is completely wrong what altruism means, it has nothing to do with serving someone else. Altruism is to selflessly help someone else WITHOUT EXPECTING ANYTHING BACK. This difference causes the whole reasoning to fall.

[@avidfilmbuff7830]

Niklas Molén Look up Auguste Comte, the man who coined the term altruism. Also read Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer and pay attention to what he says about self-sacrifice.

[@niklasmolen4753]

@@avidfilmbuff7830 It is slightly different depending on where you read. According to the sources I read earlier regarding altruism, you do not expect anything back. While helping of loyalty or sense of duty, you expect something back like recognition or a reward. Yaron speaks of sense of duty with no reward. This leads to contempt and disgust as he says. But it's not altruism.

[@quixoticindiscipline9524]

Take the term to its extreme, create a straw man argument and bash it, lame. You can also define altruism as the concern for the welfare of others (no need for human sacrifice)... It isn't so scary after all, is it?

[@xr94st3qj71]

Cool

[@michaelmasztal9486]

When you refer to Jesus as “[t]he highest”, what do you mean? Can a purported altruistic individual be considered “the highest”? While Jesus “died” from a natural perspective, he did not remain dead either. What, in you opinion, was Jesus’ main purpose for coming?

[@LiradeTerpsichore]

Ayn Rand has created much confusion for many thousands of young teenagers in america. It's actually no joke. " 4:13so altruism leads envy resentment and hatred. Egos of selfishness self-interest leads to benevolence" From Millions of examples can you prove that this is otherwise. The Nazis not the least important. Nazis & Nietzsche shared this "view". It's interesting: while people gave up belief in goodness, beauty, etc. because of WWII, & changed so much, They flirt with it's very philosophy.

[@Attritive]

Nope.