What is the O'ist view on kindness?

[Inspector]

I certaintly am not implying any type of mystical force or anything like that, lol. 

*lowers anti-hippie weapon*

However, as long as this independent man lives in a society where there are other people, it is in his own self-interest to be in a positive atmosphere, and therefore he ought to be concerned with it.

While I would agree that the kind of "positive attitude" that you mean is in the self-interest of a man living in society due to the kind of positive reactions a man might expect from others, I would argue that it is improper for the independant man to make this secondary side-effect a primary concern.

I agree that it is indeed in his interests just as I agree that capitalism is the political/economic system that most helps the poor. But just as it is improper to advocate capitalism primarily on the basis that it helps the poor, it is also improper to advocate a benevolant attitude primarily on the basis that others will react well to you. In both cases, while technically true, the focus is off and the position is undermined.

This is why I DISAGREE with your statement that Ayn Rand did not put enough emphasis on this attitude. To put any more emphasis on it would have been improper!

Hahaha.  Good line bro.

Thanks, feel free to use it on any hippies you find.

[Sam Brown]

In all of the above, just about no one seems to be observing reality. Every law in nature, eg chemistry and physics has an equal sign. Hence when l show kindness to a stranger by giving them directions, or kindness to the checkout clerk at the supermarket by pushing my groceries within his/her reach, l find l get a natural "high", a feel-good feeling. Mother nature rewards me for my kindness, establishing equilibrium.

l assume tnis is what youngman had in mind when he used the term "positive energy."

l think it cheap to accuse youngman of being a drug taking hippie. As the spanish proverb goes, words hurt forever. Dont the registration rules ban this sort of thing.

Regards

[Inspector]

l think it cheap to accuse youngman  of being a drug taking hippie.

I think it is clear that it was meant in jest, especially with my "five-alarm hippie alert" comment.

[JMeganSnow]

I agree with this, but I worry that its support may often be based in social custom or tradition. This almost negates the support it deserves from the position of rational ethics. Benevolence is virtuous because it facilitates trade. A person is better off starting a new relationship with mutual respect and kindness, since doing so takes little effort and puts him in a more optimal position for situations that he may face in the future.

Not quite, Cole . . . in a civilized society the idea of mutual respect etc. will naturally arise because the criminal elements of society are marginalized. In a non-civilized society the opposite is true and you are better off assuming EVERYONE is a thieving murdering raping bastard. Because chances are that they are.

Since we live in the remnants of a civilized society I could see how you might think that's based on social custom and tradition, but really it's just based on the "general" experiences people tend to have with each other in a given cultural setting.

[softwareNerd]

In all of the above, just about no one seems to be observing reality. Every law in nature, eg chemistry and physics has an equal sign.  Hence when l show kindness to a stranger by giving them directions, or kindness to the checkout clerk at the supermarket by pushing my groceries within his/her reach, l find l get a natural "high", a  feel-good feeling. Mother nature rewards me for my kindness, establishing equilibrium.

(emphasis not in original)

First, I'd like to focus on the epistemological aspect of the above.

1) It is false to say "Every law in nature, eg chemistry and physics has an equal sign." (Physicist and Chemist members, please correct me if I'm wrong.)

2) The word "hence" is used incorrectly. Which is to say, that even if the laws of physics and chemistry always had "an equal sign", it does not follow that kindness is reciprocated by a "high".

This use of "laws of nature" is an attempt to give a scientific sounding plausibility which does not exist. (Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an essay titled "Compensation" where he made this kind of mystical argument, wrapping it in the guise of a law of nature).

If we leave aside the "law", the "equal sign" and the "equilibrium", we're left with the following: "When I'm kind to someone, it makes me feel good".

This may be true. It may also be worthy of discussion. However, not until it has shed it's pseudo-scientific veneer.

[Inspector]

If we leave aside the "law", the "equal sign" and the "equilibrium", we're left with the following: "When I'm kind to someone, it makes me feel good".

This may be true. It may also be worthy of discussion. However, not until it has shed it's pseudo-scientific veneer.

Good job! That's EXACTLY what I was thinking and you've put it into words!

[youngman]

I think the defense of benevolence is simple. You will create a better environment for yourself to live in. This does not mean go out of your way, or make any sacrifices. It simply means, when you do deal with people, it is wise to generally be kind, unless you make judgments on the person that tell you otherwise. If you don't believe this, give it a try. Be a dick and see how many oppurtunities open up for you, see how many valuable people you get to know, etc.

[Inspector]

I think the defense of benevolence is simple.  You will create a better environment for yourself to live in.  This does not mean go out of your way, or make any sacrifices.  It simply means, when you do deal with people, it is wise to generally be kind, unless you make judgments on the person that tell you otherwise.

A better argument would be from the perspective of justice. If you don't have any reason to be hostile toward someone, then they don't deserve hostility, do they?

[Sam Brown]

l admired the African-American driver in the old film "driving Miss Daisy," for his kind treatment of that crabby old woman he drove around. Even when she was rude, he responded diplomatically. He didn't hold her touchy nature against her. There's something in the popularity of the film.

Regards

[Sam Brown]

Tolerance is willful suspension of judgement against someone's bad qualities and is bad. Felipe means that you should grant people the acknowledgement that they are a potential benefit to you until you learn otherwise, that's all.

l disagree that tolerance is willful suspension of of judgement against someones bad qualities. eg in my workplace, l am constantly surrounded by people whose politics and sexual practices l disagree with, but l keep my mouth shut, not abusing them. This to me is tolerance.. lts interesting that intolerance is a very powerful human drive - no one likes it when someone diagrees with us. It seems mother nature wants us to embrace the pro life narrow gate, and shun the anti life broad way. Hardly surprising that leftwingers keep railing that we should all be more tolerant. l'm very happy with my "intolerance".

[JMeganSnow]

That's a very subjective attitude: basically you're saying that your disagreement is what makes something bad. That's not my attitude at all. Evil is objective, which is why refraining from judging someone for active evil is also evil. Refraining from judging someone for something you don't happen to like means that you aren't certain whether a specific behavior is evil, which means that you need to take a good look at yourself and your ideas to figure out why you have an emotional reaction to something that's not actually bad.

I suppose you could exercise tolerance in particular issues where you can't prove your position and you aren't ready to start anything over it, but that should be an extremely temporary, short-lived situation. If it's a long-term situation, I'm wondering why you haven't gone to the effort to figure out where you stand yet.