Award for Kindness

[Paul Mawdsley]

This morning I watched proudly as my 6 year old daughter received an award at school. Truth is, my pride had little to do with the award. It had everything to do with seeing how she conducted herself in the world where she is separate from her parents. She interacted with the teachers and other children with independence, confidence, and a truly sparkling spirit. One of the greatest experiences in life is when your child spots you across a crowded auditorium and beams with the most infectious smile and eyes filled with happiness. It tells you in an instant that you are doing something right.

Her award was for kindness. On the program it describes award recipients as embodying the following spirit:

"I am sensitive to people's feelings. I help others in need. I am never mean or hurtful with my actions or words. I am charitable."

Personally, I think these are great qualities to develop. I believe it would be a mistake for someone to hold these qualities at the exclusion of other qualities such as self-assertiveness, self-confidence, independence, productiveness, etc. These qualities of kindness should not define a person or a moral code but they should be included. My question is: Are these qualities of kindness included in Objectivism? Or does Objectivism tend to polarize itself from such qualities or ignore their value?

Paul

Edited October 1, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Brant Gaede]

Paul. Nobody is going to take any issue with your 6 year-old daughter. Not even if they are armored with OBJECTIVISM! Well, maybe T.J. Rogers of Cypress Semi-Conductor. He once got into an argument with a nun.

--Brant

[sbeaulieu]

This morning I watched proudly as my 6 year old daughter received an award at school. Truth is, my pride had little to do with the award. It had everything to do with seeing how she conducted herself in the world where she is separate from her parents. She interacted with the teachers and other children with independence, confidence, and a truly sparkling spirit. One of the greatest experiences in life is when your child spots you across a crowded auditorium and beams with the most infectious smile and eyes filled with happiness. It tells you in an instant that you are doing something right.

Her award was for kindness. On the program it describes award recipients as embodying the following spirit:

"I am sensitive to people's feelings. I help others in need. I am never mean or hurtful with my actions or words. I am charitable."

Personally, I think these are great qualities to develop. I believe it would be a mistake for someone to hold these qualities at the exclusion of other qualities such as self-assertiveness, self-confidence, independence, productiveness, etc. These qualities of kindness should not define a person or a moral code but they should be included. My question is: Are these qualities of kindness included in Objectivism? Or does Objectivism tend to polarize itself from such qualities or ignore their value?

Paul

Paul,

I am sensitive to people's feelings, and I am never mean or hurtful with my actions or words - falls under respecting individual rights (self explanatory).

I help others in need and I am charitable - would seem to fall under rational egoism with respect to the individual finding happiness in helping others. Coersion, guilt, and mandates for charity are not sanctioned under Objectivism. There are individuals that find value in helping those who truly need assistance after falling on hard times through no fault of their own - either directly or indirectly (through charities).

~ Shane

[kiaer.ts]

Well, maybe T.J. Rogers of Cypress Semi-Conductor. He once got into an argument with a nun.

LOL!

Much of the "opposition to kindness" thing is either a mistaking of an aestheic for actual ethics or a rationalization of psychological immaturity. Of course, altruism is not about charity. But we all already knew that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

How dare your daughter excel at kindness without first reading Atlas Shrugged so she can properly explain it in non-altruistic terms?

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I suppose my tearing the wings off flies means I won't get this award.

Didn't one of Ayn Rand's characters say "I'm not kind."

[Paul Mawdsley]

I should break down how my thoughts are coming together a little more. I can see the following as part of Objectivism, even without going beyond Rand's work (whether or not it was truly actualized in her spirit):

I help others in need. I am never mean or hurtful with my actions or words. I am charitable.

However, I have a hard time placing "I am sensitive to people's feelings" within the theory and practice of Objectivism. That is unless we are to say that it is enough to be sensitive about other people's feelings about ourselves. I have definitely seen this manifest itself in Objectivists, with its corresponding tendency to trigger Objectivist rage. Sensitivity to other people's feelings, and empathy in its larger context, is not part of the O'ist head-space. It is not part of O'ist epistemology and so ends up not being any part of its metaphysics, ethics, politics or aesthetics. In fact, empathy, and the capacity to generate an empathic perspective, is not integrated into O'ism. If it is integrated into an Objectivist's life, it is by the individual embracing more than O'ism. I have said before that empathy, as a means of generating a perspective and a part of one's epistemology, has been thrown out with the social metaphysical bathwater.

Paul

[Chris Grieb]

My flippant comments notwithstanding I see absolutely nothing wrong with courtesy and benevolence. What worries me is that your daughter and the other children in her school are being taught altruism. There is so much in the culture that I see that as what your daughter is being awarded for.

Courtesy has a very big element of standing up for oneself when necessary.

[Paul Mawdsley]

My flippant comments notwithstanding I see absolutely nothing wrong with courtesy and benevolence. What worries me is that your daughter and the other children in her school are being taught altruism. There is so much in the culture that I see that as what your daughter is being awarded for.

Courtesy has a very big element of standing up for oneself when necessary.

I'm not worried about that because her parents are her primary educators. We will help her to see the nature of the choices she has to make. Altruism is only one of the choices. She has to see it for what it is along side other options and make her own judgements. Our job is to help her to see her options for what they are. There will be no indoctrination from the school or from us. We are teaching her and her brother how to see, think about and judge things for themselves. Independent critical thinking and a healthy self-esteem are the immune system of consciousness.

We should not let altruism have a monopoly on kindness and empathy. This is why these values must be integrated into a more complete system. If Objectivism is an open system, then maybe it can evolve into that complete system. If it is not, then Objectivism will eventually be left behind.

Paul

[Mikee]

Paul,

"..I have a hard time placing "I am sensitive to people's feelings" within the theory and practice of Objectivism."

I don't think it's hard at all. Rand's primary message is reason in the pursuit of values. In context, dealing with rational people, benevolence, kindness, sensitivity to others is proper behavior. I can't imagine negotiating a sale, a job interview, meeting a new person, discussing a problem to be solved with a team member, without "sensitivity to peoples feelings" not being a positive value.

Think of it a part of the "trader" principle.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Mikee

[Chris Grieb]

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Brant Gaede]

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers.

--Brant

[Mindy Newton]

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers.

--Brant

Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth?

= Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers.

--Brant

Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth?

= Mindy

All is truth. No truth, no untruths. This is because there is a hierarchy with truth being basic and untruths being derivative. Sooooo ... if you give someone an untruth you have given him nothing. Argue with that, lass!

--Brant

PS [edit]: "Truth" refers to the metaphysical. "Untruth" is purely epistemological. There! My argument is both perfect and complete! It is also irrefutable. Why? You can't refute the TRUTH!

Edited October 1, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Mindy Newton]

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers.

--Brant

Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth?

= Mindy

All is truth. No truth, no untruths. This is because there is a hierarchy with truth being basic and untruths being derivative. Sooooo ... if you give someone an untruth you have given him nothing. Argue with that, lass!

--Brant

PS [edit]: "Truth" refers to the metaphysical. "Untruth" is purely epistemological. There! My argument is both perfect and complete! It is also irrefutable. Why? You can't refute the TRUTH!

Sure, Brant, I'll be happy to "argue" with you, but I don't know what you're saying--or, at least, I hope I don't get what you're saying. Want to explain?

= Mindy

[Chris Grieb]

Mindy; I was not hurt by Brant's comments. I repeat I think T J Rogers did a very good thing when he took on the nun. From what I heard about his mail he received a huge number of other people agreed with him.

I dislike Baker because Baker is stupid and insane. I think some people on OL have gone round the bend on Ron Paul.

[Mindy Newton]

Mindy; I was not hurt by Brant's comments. I repeat I think T J Rogers did a very good thing when he took on the nun. From what I heard about his mail he received a huge number of other people agreed with him.

I dislike Baker because Baker is stupid and insane. I think some people on OL have gone round the bend on Ron Paul.

I think my remark was ill-placed, or something. Anyway, I didn't mean to take a position on Baker or Ron Paul.

= Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

Let me offer a small defense of T J Rogers.

As I understand Mr Rogers got into the dispute with the nun after the nun had offered him advice on how to run his business specifically on the makeup of his board of directors. I believe the nun wanted him to add more women and minorities to his board. Mr Roger said that his board of directors was composed of individuals who had knowledge that contributed to the business not window dressing. My memory is the nun was not offended by the discussion. I think Mr Rogers stood up for his values as a good businessman should.

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. I am an admirer of T.J. Rogers.

--Brant

Is it kinder to spare a poster here the painful truth?

= Mindy

All is truth. No truth, no untruths. This is because there is a hierarchy with truth being basic and untruths being derivative. Sooooo ... if you give someone an untruth you have given him nothing. Argue with that, lass!

--Brant

PS [edit]: "Truth" refers to the metaphysical. "Untruth" is purely epistemological. There! My argument is both perfect and complete! It is also irrefutable. Why? You can't refute the TRUTH!

Sure, Brant, I'll be happy to "argue" with you, but I don't know what you're saying--or, at least, I hope I don't get what you're saying. Want to explain?

= Mindy

Oh, no. If you understood me you could refute me!

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Paul:"We should not let altruism have a monopoly on kindness and empathy."

I agree. In fact, the lack of empathy -- Dictionary.com defines empathy as "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another" -- is one of the distinguishing characteristic of the psychopath, to whom the emotions of others have no reality and who does not see them as like his own. I haven't seen the movie, but I understand that in "Blade Runner," subjects were tested to discover if they were real human beings or android "replicants" by determining whether or not they were capable of empathy.

I think it important, however, to note that empathy is not synonomous with compassion or sympathy, although without empathy, compassion and sympathy are impossible. To explain why I say they are not synonymous, I'll give an extreme example from my own experience.

A number of years ago, I read Inside the Third Reich, the Memoirs of Albert Speer. Speer was Hitler's personal architect and city planner, in charge of designing stadiums. palaces and supercities for the future Greater Germany. At Nuremberg, unique among the Nazi defendants, he admitted his guilt and did not protest his sentence of 20 years at Spandau. He offered his book, written during his imprisonment, as his attempt to understand and explain why a reasonably decent young man, taken into Hitler's entourage, became a part to the evils of the Nazi regime. In oversimplified essence, he states that his downfall was ambition; through Hitler, Speer achieved all of his youthful architectural ambitions and dreams. Reading this, I could understand how a young man might be dazzled by being given opportunities beyond his most extravagant imagining. I felt that I understood the pull his desire to build would have on him. I knew what it felt like to want something very badly and to hope that nothing would prevent the fulfillment of that desire.

But youthful ambition was anything but the whole story. Because what is clear in Speer's tale is that with it went a willingness to close his eyes to any and all barbarities that might interfere with his new loyalties. Speer was appointed Minister of Armaments and War Production, undoubtedly prolonging the war by his efforts. And in 1944, a friend pf Speer, who had visited Auschwitz, warned him not to go there. Speer took his advice. Hs pact with the devil was complete. Reading this, I felt that if Speer had been given the death penalty instead of a 20-year sentence -- that would have been fine with me,

Of course, in many if not most cases where we feel empathy, we do feel sympathy, because most people are like us and not like Albert Speer.

There is an area, however, in which, in our society today, empathy appears to be grievously lacking. How many people, who feel pain at the suffering of others, are able to empathize and rejoice with others at their achievements? How many can "vicariously experience" the joy of a Christian Barnard at performing the first successful heart transplant -- or of a businessman earning his first millions after years of excruciating effort -- or of an an architect watching his first skyscraper rising toward the heavens -- or of an Ayn Rand writing"The End" at the conclusion of the manuscript of Atlas Shrugged? And what has gone so dreadfully wrong that this form of empathy is so rare?

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

There is an area, however, in which, in our society today, empathy appears to be grievously lacking. How many people, who feel pain at the suffering of others, are able to empathize and rejoice with others at their achievements? How many can "vicariously experience" the joy of a Christian Barnard at performing the first successful heart transplant -- or of a businessman earning his first millions after years of excruciating effort -- or of an an architect watching his first skyscraper rising toward the heavens -- or of an Ayn Rand writing"The End" at the conclusion of the manuscript of Atlas Shrugged? And what has gone so dreadfully wrong that this form of empathy is so rare?

Barbara

There is a worm buried deep. It acts like this: Why is he so successful and I am not. Either it is because I have not tried hard enough (my bad!) or he is luckier than I am. But why should he be lucky and not me? In the first instance one must admit inferiority. In the second instance one believes that luck (or innate talent) should be spread around evenly and somehow he is cheated (by whom?). And that is why some people begrudge the success of others.

The "solution" is for each of us to find a niche in life where our light shines too. That takes effort and the Original Sin of Mankind is laziness.

If my light shines Here and your light shines There then I have no reason to envy or resent the fact that your light shines. We can all be beings of light if we set our minds to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara, I think the kind of empathy you are referring to is so rare is envy and cowardice. Here there are two layers of envy. The basic, pure form and all those who feel its existence and are afraid of it like it was a big cat wandering around outside one's jungle compound at night. And the culture celebrates it less and less as it becomes less visible. But a little, innocent girl can go on a public stage and show that the emperor of envy has no clothes.

Then there is the adult who is impervious to envy. The governor of Alaska.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Of course, in many if not most cases where we feel empathy, we do feel sympathy, because most people are like us and not like Albert Speer.

I find Speer one of the most fascinating figures from the Nazi era. He is the embodiment of the Faustian legend, the man who sold his soul to the devil. With 20/20 hindsight it is of course easy to say that we wouldn't have made the same error, but personally I'm not so sure of that. He writes how he first didn't see much in Hitler, then still only a noisy orator, but how he was captivated when Hitler showed a seemingly much more reasonable side when he spoke to a gathering of students. And then he got his first project as a young architect, followed by more projects, gradually getting more and more involved with the Nazi movement. Just as with the mafia, at a certain moment you could no longer go back in that environment if you wanted to survive, so I can understand that he chose to close his eyes for the less savory aspects. From our comfortable position it's easy to blame him for not being a hero, but I wouldn't want to have been put before that choice myself, so I do feel some sympathy for him. His relation to Hitler was also curiously personal, it was almost a father-son relation, some people even suggested a homosexual attraction, although I doubt that that played a role, but he certainly was the odd man out in the high-ranking Nazi group. Are most people like us and not like Albert Speer? I have my doubts, I think Albert Speer was in fact not so much different from us, but his circumstances were, and would we've made always the right choices in those circumstances?

[Mindy Newton]

This morning I watched proudly as my 6 year old daughter received an award at school. Truth is, my pride had little to do with the award. It had everything to do with seeing how she conducted herself in the world where she is separate from her parents. She interacted with the teachers and other children with independence, confidence, and a truly sparkling spirit. One of the greatest experiences in life is when your child spots you across a crowded auditorium and beams with the most infectious smile and eyes filled with happiness. It tells you in an instant that you are doing something right.

Her award was for kindness. On the program it describes award recipients as embodying the following spirit:

"I am sensitive to people's feelings. I help others in need. I am never mean or hurtful with my actions or words. I am charitable."

Personally, I think these are great qualities to develop. I believe it would be a mistake for someone to hold these qualities at the exclusion of other qualities such as self-assertiveness, self-confidence, independence, productiveness, etc. These qualities of kindness should not define a person or a moral code but they should be included. My question is: Are these qualities of kindness included in Objectivism? Or does Objectivism tend to polarize itself from such qualities or ignore their value?

Paul

I'm wondering why this question comes up at all, Paul. Why does Objectivism seem to ignore kindness?

= Mindy

[Brant Gaede]

Of course, in many if not most cases where we feel empathy, we do feel sympathy, because most people are like us and not like Albert Speer.

I find Speer one of the most fascinating figures from the Nazi era. He is the embodiment of the Faustian legend, the man who sold his soul to the devil. With 20/20 hindsight it is of course easy to say that we wouldn't have made the same error, but personally I'm not so sure of that. He writes how he first didn't see much in Hitler, then still only a noisy orator, but how he was captivated when Hitler showed a seemingly much more reasonable side when he spoke to a gathering of students. And then he got his first project as a young architect, followed by more projects, gradually getting more and more involved with the Nazi movement. Just as with the mafia, at a certain moment you could no longer go back in that environment if you wanted to survive, so I can understand that he chose to close his eyes for the less savory aspects. From our comfortable position it's easy to blame him for not being a hero, but I wouldn't want to have been put before that choice myself, so I do feel some sympathy for him. His relation to Hitler was also curiously personal, it was almost a father-son relation, some people even suggested a homosexual attraction, although I doubt that that played a role, but he certainly was the odd man out in the high-ranking Nazi group. Are most people like us and not like Albert Speer? I have my doubts, I think Albert Speer was in fact not so much different from us, but his circumstances were, and would we've made always the right choices in those circumstances?

I would have made the right basic choice and gotten out of Germany.

My Father would not have.

I hardly have it in me to make an even worse statement about my Father, but he was much better than those high up German Nazis because he was in America. If Speer had been in America he would have been a better person than my Dad. My Dad's sheer brains completely unbalanced him. People who knew him before WWII were simply staggered by his energy and intelligence. Most found him very unlikeable. A very unpleasant man. He had some empathy. On a scale of 1-100 he probably got an 8. My family was so strange then. My liberal Mother married to a crypto-Nazi because she got pregnant with my sister. Her own Father had direct access to the Roosevelt Administration including Roosevelt himself. My Dad was an anti-Roosevelt agitator yakking away before tens of thousands at Madison Square Garden. He carried a cane in those days. The police got the idea it concealed a knife. A sword cane. One cop grabbed the cane and tried to twist the handle off right on the stage. (Decades ago a thug tried to mug a European gentleman in Manhattan. He did have a sword cane. I don't think he killed the would-be mugger, just poked him a few times and drove him off, but there was one hell of a commotion. A witness told my Dad about it. The cops never knew.)

--Brant

Edited October 2, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

Of course, in many if not most cases where we feel empathy, we do feel sympathy, because most people are like us and not like Albert Speer.

I find Speer one of the most fascinating figures from the Nazi era. He is the embodiment of the Faustian legend, the man who sold his soul to the devil. With 20/20 hindsight it is of course easy to say that we wouldn't have made the same error, but personally I'm not so sure of that. He writes how he first didn't see much in Hitler, then still only a noisy orator, but how he was captivated when Hitler showed a seemingly much more reasonable side when he spoke to a gathering of students. And then he got his first project as a young architect, followed by more projects, gradually getting more and more involved with the Nazi movement. Just as with the mafia, at a certain moment you could no longer go back in that environment if you wanted to survive, so I can understand that he chose to close his eyes for the less savory aspects. From our comfortable position it's easy to blame him for not being a hero, but I wouldn't want to have been put before that choice myself, so I do feel some sympathy for him. His relation to Hitler was also curiously personal, it was almost a father-son relation, some people even suggested a homosexual attraction, although I doubt that that played a role, but he certainly was the odd man out in the high-ranking Nazi group. Are most people like us and not like Albert Speer? I have my doubts, I think Albert Speer was in fact not so much different from us, but his circumstances were, and would we've made always the right choices in those circumstances?

Dragonfly, I think you forget the extent of the atrocities Speer witnessed even during the early Hitler years. Yes, the time did come when he could no longer go back in that environment if he wanted to survive -- but that could not have stopped him from acknowledging, if only to himself, the nature of the regime he had embraced. But he admits that he never did so. And long before he reached the point of no return, the amount of willful blindness he had to engage in is appalling. He, an intelligent, educated man, did not protest the growth of the secret police and its reign of terror, he did not object to the Nuremberg laws; he walked non-judgmentally past the broken panes of Jewish shops and the broken bodies of Jewish men during Kristallnacht; he stood supportively beside Hitler as Hitler launched his wars against defenseless European countries; later, he willingly used concentration camp prisoners as slave labor in the factories he controlled. And even at the end, after what he says was 20 years of a sincere effort to understand why he had behaved as he did, it is my conviction that he continued to lie -- to lie to himself and to the readers of his book. He did not know the full horror of the concentration camps, he insisted to the end, as most of Germany also insisted. Then why did he he take his friend's advice and avoid visiting Auschwitz? I believe the black horror in his soul that he never faced or acknowledged was that he knew precisely what was happening at Auschwitz and the other camps -- just as most Germans knew it.

One could make the case that Speer was not better than the rest of the Nazi hierarchy, but worse. The demented Hess, the drug-addicted Goering, the sadistic Himmler-- these men had neither the intelligence nor the talent of Speer. It was Speer who had the most to betray, and did betray it.

Barbara