Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Altruism vs. Kindness: Ayn Rand Explains
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 сер 2024
- READ AYN RAND'S NOVEL ATLAS SHRUGGED
Get a free copy of one of America’s most influential novels. Atlas Shrugged portrays inspiring heroes facing down the consequences of altruism in action. aynrand.org/at...
These were Ayn Rand's answers to questions asked by students of her philosophy and curious newcomers in a 1964 interview on WKCR radio at Columbia University.
How would you define altruism? Why do you think that altruism and benevolence are not the same?
TIMESTAMPS
(00:00) - Intro
(00:09) - How would you define altruism?
(00:52) - Why do you think that altruism and benevolence are not the same?
----------------------------------
Subscribe to ARI’s UA-cam channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
She’s so precise with her words, it’s amazing. Pure truth and clarity with understandable language. This is why she’s not respected by academic philosophers. But I respect Rand deeply for giving me a guiding stone in life. Thanks for uploading.
Altruism is dictionary defined as, 'the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'.
It's not an, 'ethical system'. It's a word in the English language. Only someone as twisted and distorted as Ayn Rand would claim it to be something else. It doesn't claim man has no right to exist for his own sake. Just doesn't. It's just a word. The only person to claim it's a system is Rand herself.
@@therepublicofcynica It's both a word in the English language, AND an ethical system.
This is obvious if you've ever participated in a modern western feminised society. We're taught from a young age to care more about the thoughts and feelings of other over our own. Particularly if you an able bodied white man.
@@therepublicofcynica You purposely skipped the most important word in the definition: 'the principle and practice of *SELFLESS* concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'.
Merely being concerned about the welfare of others is called kindness. We are kind because we expect something in return. Not money necessarily, but kindness in return, or the respect of others in society, or just the warm feeling of having helped someone else.
Altruism requires that you receive NOTHING from the transaction, no kindness in return, no respect from others, no warm fuzzy feeling.
To demonstrate:
*Kindness* is giving a cash donation to a disabled veteran who you value as a human being for his service. It cost you something but in return you get the warm feeling of having helped someone you hold as worthy.
*Altruism* is giving a cash donation to a group of pedophiles who you rightfully despise. It cost you something, but you get nothing in return except perhaps the feeling of revulsion for what you've done.
In order to be altruistic, your "kindness" must be "selfless". It must cost you something AND you must receive NOTHING in return, otherwise, it's just plain kindness. In order for it to be "selfless" it must not provide you with ANY benefit at all and it must cost you something of value.
@@therepublicofcynicaby your logic, "bread" is not food, but just "a wOrd iN tHe EnGLiSh LaNgAuGe".
You do realize that a word also has a meaning behind it, right? And it's both a word and its meaning? But what do we expect from collectivists...
@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 You use this name collectivist to describe anyone who disagrees with you because it is simple enough to define anyone as a collectivist in one way or another much like the belief in original sin.. Anyone who disagrees with Rand is a collectivist by definition. Otherwise they would agree with her. Words have meaning only because we use they for agreed upon meaning in a language that is constructed using grammer. The problem with Rand's philosophy is that man is a social animal who uses social labor and a division of labor to make a life for ourselves We are not crabs who hatch from eggs on a beach and scurry about as reasoning individuals using a crab's brain lto mount a hunt for food and a mate heading for the sea. Human beings have culture which we produce socially after meeting our basic needs. Culture and a surplus is passed down from generation to generation. All the while growing ever bigger.
I've read Altas, and a few others of her works. But, this is the first time I've heard her speak. Just an amazing answer. There was some brilliance there. A very insightful woman, she was.
✌
Altruism... I love how it was well explained by Ayn Rand.
Altruism does not exist, what we need is kindness. She brilliantly explains how these values are mutually exclusive.
She said altruism to its extreme makes kindness impossible. She obviously hated altruism, but I feel that she skipped the "altruism might be good in small portions" argument, which is what most people means?
@@stigccthat is what people might think initially but then eventually they find themselves blanking out the killing of babies and raping of girls in the streets while they shout slogans like from the river to the sea.
@coreyflorez9466 Kindness is only impossible under altruism if you sacrify yourself. That is an important and interesting point she made, but it is only true when altruism is taken to its extreme.
In reality, both altruism and kindness are group evolution strategies that will increase your and your groups fitness
@coreyflorez9466 You are right that humans are fundamentally individuals. But, that does not mean that group strategies can not evolve to be a human trait. For example, the granparents have evolved to take care of their grandchildren.
Some even theorize that homosexuals spread their genes by taking care of their nephews and nieces.
Altruism is definetely a heritable trait, not a construct. Just like dark triad traits are heritable.
@coreyflorez9466 For a study on altruism and heridability, please see "Attachment and politics are two functionally distinct systems, and both share genetics with interpersonal trust and altruism". It estimates the heritability of altruism to 0.32 from using twins (32% of the variance can be attributed to genetics)
Ayn Rand certainly had an excellent command of and precision and clarity with language.
Which is pretty amazing since she came to America not knowing the language in her 20s. I as a native speaker can only strive for her level of clarity and precision.
Man! -that was concise.
The courses at the institute are amazing !
So tell us the reasons why you think this about the courses.
One cannot misunderstand her point but by choice. One cannot argue her point and still claim to be intelligent.
To argue or argue against?
@@TheJustinJone cannot legitimately argue against her points.
What? Those two sentences don't make any sense. For what it's worth I understand Rand and she's wrong, not only about this but many other things to. Be quiet.
@@therepublicofcynica "Be quit".
Thank you for proving you have nothing of substance.
You are wrong. Because I say so.
@@therepublicofcynica Confucius say, tis better to remain silent and appear a fool than to open one's mouth and confirm it. You clearly either do not understand Rand's writings, or you are just not bright enough to understand it.
Truths that cut like razor blades through the human consciousness... Therefore, few people are willing to accept them...
Amazing video!
Agree completely. Psych101 - you cannot by definition do anything but what you choose to do. There is no such thing as selfless kindness, it can still kindness but be honest about the motive
Perhaps, but it's not useful to frame motivations that way, as there is no way to refute such logic.
Not all actions are voluntary. Furthermore, neither are they immune from influence by external factors. The idea that we can be soley responsible for everything that happens and that everything is done with intention is a farcical fallacy.
Look no futher than these comments, this absolute drivel and psuedo intellectual ego stroking. Someone was even using Bard for their responses... they clearly have most likely not read Kant, Rand, Socrates, any philosophy at all really om their own.. much less begin to form their own ideas about those things epistemologically or etymologically.
I respect philosphical differences but to be truthful imho, Ayn Rand was a quack. She indeed had many insightful things to say, was articulate, but i even stop short of calling her well read since she seemed to twist everything with a level of egotistical bias borderlining on pathology.
That is the reason they hate her.
The fascist left hate this because they require the masses to be brainwashed into thinking that it's better they live for the collective, than it is to live for themselves. They hate this because it destroys any argument they have in favour of stealing the wealth and prosperity of others, and siphoning it into their own pockets (and gullet). They hate it because it destroys their faux "Im better than you because I care more about other people", which is their principle defence against criticism.
"And this is why I thank you."
Darn, that's powerful 👏
Greetings from Kira Argounova
They are a moral/political concept. They only apply to individuals in a social setting. If you were alone on a desert island, you'd need morality, a code of values to guide your choices and actions, but not rights because there would be no one to violate your rights. Rights are principles concerning your freedom of action in a social setting. What actions can you take morally without violating someone else's rights? That is what the concept of rights identifies and defines. The basic way that rights can be violated, and really it's the only way, is by physical force. So the basic moral/political principle is: No man may obtain any value by physical force against another. That leaves peaceful, voluntary trade and cooperation as the only moral way for men to deal with each other.
Corporate body..She is ! No question !! Much love and extremely adorable !! Ah !
Be kind for the sake of kindness. I get ya.
If it is collective then there is no gain in the suffering of one, thus it is required to look after each other. If I were very rich, for example I could be kind and give $20 to a starving person and forget about them and go home to my castle. If I were altruistic I would be helping that person to rise also which would demand more than my $20, but also my thoughts, care and possibly more of my wealth. It is not a bad thing-but I think it’s contradictory to capitalism.
Your comment is completely stupid because it's irrelevant. The critique of Altruism as a moral imperative, which lead directly to the NAZI and Soviet regimes, and others, that killed millions of people, is the issue. Nobody is saying "don't treat people with respect or kindness".
She's using the definition that the creator of that term used. Dictionaries only tell you how people use the term currently. That's why dictionary definitions change over time. But the word literally means to live for others.
She is actually using it in a specific technical sense, as a social/ideological moral imperative. She is not using it in the standard dictionary sense. Presumably she used this word in this way to garner controversy, hence attention. And it clearly worked.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines altruism as: "unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others"
That is exactly the definition Rand is using.
@@johnnynick6179 That's correct, but it's not the whole picture.
@@willnitschke What are you doing here at this time of the morning? I thought I was the only whack-o commenting so late.... or am I early for tomorrow?
Stay well my friend.
@@johnnynick6179 This is because everyone on the planet lives in your jurisdiction and nowhere else? You're not very intelligent, are you?
The Philosophy of the Sith and the biggest cause of Mental Illness in the US. "Moreover, individuals with an anxiety disorder are “afflicted” with self-absorption not because they’re selfish or insensitive to others (as are narcissists), but because they’re locked into bothersome, repetitive thought processes reflecting fears both about their personal adequacy and how others might (adversely) see them." Psychology Today--"Self-Absorption: The Root of All (Psychological) Evil?"
Crying Soyjack: nooooooo you can't just live for your own sake reeeeeeeeeee
A lot of such crying soyjacks are present in this very comment section. They knew it was a Rand video and they came here anyway to throw their entitled collectivist tantrums, it must be their humiliation fetish.
The reason she says that it t argue that one does not have to care for the disabled child at the other side of the town .. that it is OK to ignore it - if you choose to... take this pathological / evil position..
But denying altruism cannot prevent the state to declare that it has to collect $ from you to take care of the child : it has that right because you could not have a business or even exist without state infrastructure , high tech , credit and security ... Therefore it has the right to tax to take care of people who are unable to do it for themselves ...
Of course you are free to leave that state .. and go to a remote island to have your own army , high tech , infrastructure ... One is free to do so : just leave your passport and most of the wealth you produced with public aid .. And best of luck....
It's not about caring for disabled children, champ. The reason why she argues what she argues is that state sanctioned altruistic moral imperatives killed an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century, mostly starvation.
@@willnitschke By that mode of analysis -- the book you are referring too - capitalism has k...... much more .. :
"Counting bodies" by Chomsky - it is still on line..
@@dsgio7254 No it doesn't, that's just make believe nonsense. And Chimpsky was a defender of Pol Pot. I wouldn't be using him as a credible source. 🤣
@@willnitschke " No it doesn't " is not a argument.
It is not about the source (even if we assume that Chomsky is not....... credible compared to .....a random anonymous user....
It is about what he says : India alone capitalism experiment resulted to more d... due to famine compared to all Stalinist regimes ... which is not an opinion or judgment. It is a fact.
@@dsgio7254 If you don't present an argument, I don't have to present a counter argument to mock your bullshit, sorry. What argument is needed if you're just typing pure nonsense and making an idiot of yourself anyway? It's your job to defend your claim not just rant nonsense at people.😂
And no, Chimpsky as a defender of the Pol Pot regime, has zero Geo-political credibility and hasn't had any for at least 50 years. This is fact, not opinion, sorry. The only reason why you cite that fool is because he is as nutty as you.
The issue with Stalinism (something which you're defending which just demonstrates how mentally disturbed you are), is that it made famines vastly worse than they needed to be.
Does she make any differentiation between moral and political rights here, or is she being redundant?
That b!tch was crazy for real....
What's a moral right?!
Only one kind of rights.
Rights are the bridge between ethics and politics.
@@Neo-African Why do the ideas of a long-dead tiny little Russian immigrant woman frighten you so?
@@johnnynick6179 Because the madness she planted lives on after her....
That b!tch was really crazy...
Do you know she actually lived off welfare?
No differentiation made here, but elsewhere.
And it's an unnecessary detail, not a redundancy.
83: Hence Crooked LGBTQ
This is just bizarre. OF COURSE I have a moral duty to put my children's and even to some extent my wife's needs ahead of my own. I don't get her take at all. Why does she have to re-define altruism to mean sacrifice oneself to any other random human being? I call BS.
Those are VALUES to you. They aren't just simply anybody else...
@@silvanabaralha8665 Uh? Can you rephrase this so it makes sense? I'm guessing English is not your first language, but then again, it;;s not mine either so no excuses...
@@KRGruner Your regard for your wife and children is a result of you putting VALUE on them. You value them and therefore you want to provide for and care for them. Providing for your children is NOT a sacrifice when you love them.
On the other hand, providing for people you do NOT value... providing for a Nazi Pedophile, for example, would NOT support your values. That would be a sacrifice.
An altruist is someone who sacrifices something he values for something he deems of lesser value.
I contend that this is NOT possible for ANY rational human being.... which is precisely WHY it is demanded of us.
I disagree. She mixes sacrifice with altruism.
Altruism is egositic kindness (you are nice because you expect kindness in return) while placing the collective over youself is not altruism but rather sacrifice.
Don't prattle and try to have your cake and eat it. Altruism and egoism are mutually exclusive opposites, and consistence requires you to make the choice.
Altruism is literally defined by sacrifice. Egoism is defined by investment and gain, which individuals can acquire by cooperating. Even by helping someone, without a direct compensation.
In altruism, you deal sacrificially with others because it is your mystical duty. In egoism, you deal "selfishly" with others because it benefits both.
Yes. But altruism doesnt equal sacrifical.
@@k85 i disagree. If Altruism equaled sacrificial then we would not need a different word for it.
Altruism and egoism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I already described the scenario above in which there is an egoistic dimension.
@@juanzulu1318 As moral primaries, they are mutually exclusive opposites. We are not talking about how things manifest superficially, ever, when Ayn Rand and Objectivism are the context. We are talking principles, and in that context you have to resolve ideas, make the choice, and take a stand.
Altruism and sacrifice are separate, but sacrifice defines altruism. Altruism means setting others above self. Sacrifice is putting out value and getting less back in return.
Once again, there should be no room for prattle, semantics, and sophistry here. The issue is very clear.
Babies are shown to be altruistic---until they begin to learn language and develop an Ego (it requires the word "I"). Altruism is our natural state--Selfishness is a learnt trait. This is Rand's biggest error---as Selfishness is the cause of one's pain (anxiety and fear). Why her philosophy is one of darkness and evil...
This kind of robotic logic is both pointless and dangerous. Every 1st year philosophy student knows that any concept is an ideal and no ideal exists in the real world. By the time you reach Wittgenstein you become aware that everything is fluid and that something like altruism exists as a form of situational/fluid stance. If we add Bourdieu's different kinds of capitals then even such an ideal altruist wouldn't become a "sacrificial animal" (pretty poor and thesis-heavy choice of words) but could be rich with happiness and social credit stemming from his constant help. Since Rand is such a proponent of maximizing individual happiness I don't see a contradiction between altruism and aynrandism.
Try to lighten up on the adjectives when you make an argument, and don't make veiled jabs like "every 1st year philosophy student knows..." it won't persuade anybody who doesn't already agree.
@@howlingdin9332 how about referring to the point i made?
@@zabity Knucklehead, perfection is not required nor will it ever be achieved. We can head in a good direction by embracing individualism or we can go back to the dark ages of collectivism and mass death. Your comment was the sort of comment a dumb person makes who is desperate to sound clever, and fails.
@@willnitschke tell me how individualism would be the "good direction" in the universe which provides countless arguments to prove that teamwork and relations are all there is? even your little individualism sits deep in a web of relations with other objects in space, so at best, this whole 'individualism' thingy is nothing more than physical feature of a biochemical construct that was called to life by misterious chain of physical laws that organize a set of matter into a robot focused on it's survival by all means. you seem to have overslept the moment in time when these material robots started organizing matter on a whole other level where the sole one robot's existance is secondary to the bigger idea of survival of the whole code. why does the code exist in the first place? imho not to bring satisfaction to an individual robot, rather for some greater purpose. ps. starting a comment with 'knucklehead' doesn't add you any IQ points, dear.
@@zabity Individualism doesn't exclude cooperation, knucklehead. Social organisation that has affirmed the primacy of the individual, i.e., liberal democracies, have produced the greatest prosperity and security for societies. Societies that have affirmed the primacy of the collective, such as the USSR, China (especially prior to Deng Xiaoping), the Pol Pot regime, NAZI Germany, etc., have all been catastrophically bad with millions dead.
These are just empirical realities. Your "theoretical" babblings are just that, babblings.
Calls herself a philosopher--but doesn't realize being selfish causes pain, which means she endorses the opposite of wisdom (wisdom is seeking after virtuous joyful serenity--not material things and feeding one's ego). No living thing on this planet seeks pain over pleasure. She should have read some books on Stoicism or Confucianism. Not to mention her being a hypocrite for surviving on Social Security--when she never even paid into it. No wonder she is loved by Republicans---they do the same thing, criticize social programs and disability, while most of them receive it.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
Bravo.
You're a slandering criminal.
Educate yourself.
None of these writings of Uwer-Nie8os should be confused with coherence.
@@geekonomist Sorry. Plato did say the prisoners suffering in the cave would only laugh and mock when a true philosopher would come back in and try to explain the difference between their illusions and the true joy found when one releases their Ego and Selfish ways (their chains). To be wise, you have to be able to make a distinction between good and evil and if you think Rand is good, you deserve your pains--just keep on enjoying your shadows on the wall, but don't blame me for your suffering.
I got 21 seconds in and thought to myself.....wrong. Altruism is dictionary defined as, 'the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'.
It's not an, 'ethical system'. It's a word in the English language. Only someone as twisted and distorted as Ayn Rand would claim it to be something else. It doesn't claim man has no right to exist for his own sake. Just doesn't. It's just a word. The only person to claim it's a system is Rand herself.
Rand was a right-wing intellectual who proffessed that man (humans) are inately selfish and that capitalism was the way forward. She had no sense for the poor, the underpriveldged or those that need help. She was a despicable woman. The Ayn Rand Institute wants to perpetuate this. They're dispicable.
"The belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the wellbeing of others."
"Behavior of an animal that benefits another at its own expense."
You are wrong. Those are dictionary definitions of altruism. If you extrapolate from that what a system would like based on such a monstrous exercise, you understand what she's talking about. She does not advocate for never helping others. She advocates against the practice of helping others to your own detriment, and the atrocities that are permissible when a nation follows such an immoral code.
Ayn Rand & @ZeroRyu are clearly displaying the mindset of psychopaths.
Humans are not just a Social species,....but a Eu-Social species....(A.k.a "Hyper-Social")
Any human that think Altruism is a bad thing is clearly a psychopath.
The dicitionary is not citing the source of the initial inventor of the term. Stop peddling the BS of those who want to forcibly make me an altruist.
@@geekonomist Stop couching an unexamined selfish interest in terms of forgiving yourself for not becoming better minded under the guise of "freedom".
Why do you collectivists make such blatant mistakes on defining altruism? Could it be that you don't want others to understand the true meaning and intent behind the word?
Altruism: "'the principle and practice of *selfless* concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals'."
You left out the most important word in the definition.
Babies are shown to be altruistic---until they begin to learn language and develop an Ego (it requires the word "I"). Altruism is our natural state--Selfishness is a learnt trait. This is Rand's biggest error---as Selfishness is the cause of one's pain (anxiety and fear). Why her philosophy is one of darkness and evil...
Couldn't agree more. Well said.
So be cause babies are naturally altruistic, that should be our moral imperative? Should we also confine ourselves to all the other limitations babies experience? You claim that what a baby learns is bad, saying that language and ego lead them astray. So we should strive to be unthinking automatons? Ego is learned because you begin to differentiate between yourself and "other". Further learning is still required. Altruism is a stain. You demonstrate that even more with your comment in its defense.
@@ZeroRyu7 The argument is that altruism is implicit to our natural state; an evolutionary adaptation which is then conditioned out by cultural constructs that "select" for selfishness. Altruism is not remotely a "stain" except to those who do not know the difference between selfish interest and self interest. The lack of altruism in the implicit social contract is a symptom of mal-adaptive individuality, and it shows up in the degree of inequity people must endure as others serve nothing more than their own selfish interest.
Humans are not just a Social species,....but a Eu-Social species....(A.k.a "Hyper-Social")
Any human that think Altruism is a bad thing is clearly a psychopath.
@@ZeroRyu7 You sound like you will bill your kids, friends and parents for any favours you ever did them....
Though I don't believe in God, the only thing I can actually think off that can help you, is God.
I get it now. She was insane.
No. You are.
I get you now. You are arbitrary.
@@geekonomist Are you part of the Geek Squad?
@@ANascente Not so far. Maybe by my next birthday.
@@ANascenteThat's probably excusing him unjustly.
He's _worse:_ he's evil.