Origin of Altruism - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[organdva]

Do what is good for the economy, nation? Isn't that in the core of capitalist ideology? Workers interests are the bosses interest? This is manipulation by the bosses. Workers solidarity and mutual aid realize the strength of numbers, collective cooperation. Individual competition only benefits the boss, capitalist. Class-consciousness is is beyond altruism-egoism false dichotomy.

[auret]

sociopathic nonsense.

[Diamonddavej]

Altruism, Indirect Reciprocity, is simple to understand:

"If I help you, my reputation will be improved and thus someone else will help me."

In Rand's time, people only knew about and studied reciprocity between two people, they did not explore the dynamics and evolution of reciprocity within groups. Altruism is also known as "Survival of the Nicest". Nice people are more successful.

Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund K., 2005. Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298.

[Trinivalts]

The fact that altruism can be manipulated doesn't mean it's artificial. What load of dumbcrap this is. That sort of argument can be applied to just about anything.

[logtype47]

It amazes me how these free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatment.

[Unputonombre84]

@logtype47 Ummm... If she was a tax paying citizen during her productive years then she was more than entitled to use madicare, after all, she paid for it through taxes. It wouldn't be fair to deprive her of her hard earned money for so many years of her life and not to expect her to claim what belongs to her. Mind you, it was a service she paid for involuntarily. I do not know much about the medicare system but it only makes sense to use it if you paid for it.

[djupp]

Aristotle was certainly an egoist. I'm sure someone will be able to quote me any passage in his work that supports that theory. As far as I am concerned it's about as plausible as saying that Ayn Rand was a communist.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker How laughable is that you say that evolutionary biology says "altruism doesn't exist" but can't quote a evolutionary biologist?, very. In other words, you're a 100% phony caricature.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker How laughable is that you're not basing your argument on a scientific theory, you're basing your argument on a thesis?, I would say very much. How laughable is that you can't direct me to any work based on such thesis?, very. How laughable is that I invite you to address the other relevant example but you're unwilling to?, very.

......

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker ......acting with altruism because it is not protecting its life, but someone else's life. Protecting her queen's life is protecting its own genes or the representation of them, its species, this is where selfishness is observed. In other words, the ant is acting altruistic out of self-interest, but you're too dumb to understand this. You're a joke, and is not funny.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker You need a slap from reality so you stop living in your little world of ignorance and denial. You say that evolutionary biology says that altruism doesn't exist, could you please tell where I can find this info?

Maybe you believe that altruism doesn't exist because you think that Objectivism says so. If so, stop it now because objectivism says that altruism exist, the difference is that it says that altruism is evil and immoral.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Objectivism says that altruism is evil and immoral for humans. For ants with their different nature, morality is not possible. A sterile female acting to protect the nest of its queen is not acting with altruism, it is acting selfishly, and in accordance with its ant nature.

Typical leftist. Pretending to know what someone else needs, then lying about what others say. Pathetic. Sad.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker My point was, subnormal ding-a-ling, that objectivism admits the existence of altruism, and of course it was about humans.

For ants!!, who is talking about ants, I said termites not ants. See how incapable and dumb are you?, you're self-defeating. Now that is truly pathetic and sad.

And as for animal not having morality, sorry to burst your bubble for the umpteenth time, but animals do have morality, not as developed as humans but they do. And the ant that you're talking about is.....

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker One of the best examples I can think of is the sacrifice of termites for their colony. When ants attack their colony, soldier termites will come out of the colony to buy some time so the workers inside the colony can bury the entrance and this way save the colony. The soldier termites who stay outside die. This is altruism.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker You decided to stick to the squirrel example because you thought of having a chance getting away with it, while ignoring other examples I gave you, such as the sacrifice people make for strangers without expecting a reward. You never told me what to call the sacrifice of parent for their offspring when they can choose not to make any sacrifice and live. You never told me what to call the sacrifice of dogs for their owners.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Mind reading again? You raised the squirrel example. I responded that your example was false. Why false? For it to be true the squirrel having spotted the hawk would have to be in greater danger than when it had not spotted the hawk. In otherwords, the hawk would have to not be an ambush predator. If not , then it would not matter if its prey was alerted. Since the hawk is an ambush predator, it does matter, having spotted the predator, the squirrel often alerts and escapes.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker You're a cold blooded unabashed trash-writing machine. Very very disappointing performance for someone who allegedly worked solving differential equations, and on animal behavior. My best evidence of how incapable you are is your side stepping. Why don't you respond about the other examples? Why can't you give me a source where I can find that evolutionary biology says that altruism doesn't exist? Why can't you tell me......

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 I don't need to know everything to refute your argument when you make your argument based on a falsehood. I don't know about all animals, but because of my knowledge of Dr. Hobbs' thesis, I knew your premise of the squirrel was false. Since you used a falsehood in your argument, your argument fails, and the rest need not be addressed. Thinking that I need to address your delusions is itself one of your delusions.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker ......of a work relying of Hobbs thesis?. I know why, because you're delusional, literally speaking. Don't know what delusional means?, look it up. As for the squirrel we should just drop it, you keep saying A and keep saying B, and this way we're going in circles. No meaningful exchange will pan out until you start tackling the things I've put on the table. Have some dignity.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker ......live in delusion. You say that "I can go.. without... disrupt my life by shooting thugs", what are you on?, we're talking about altruism not robbers, vandals, or murderers. And supposing that altruism equates these social illnesses, and I was a criminal, the benefit for you is zero because I don't, or anyone reading this, live in your neighborhood. Even if I lived in your neighborhood, I won't stop my crime because you "clarified" the meaning of altruism. Ignoramus.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 If charlatans don't get enough graft by fraud, they move on to theft under color of authority, after all. your ilk complain that people actually profit from work, holding up as your standard of virtue "altruism". I talk past you to those who might be fooled, reading your words, to think there was something in this "altruism" thing. If Altruism meant anything to you, you would agree with me to make me feel better. Since you don't, you don't believe in altruism either.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker Someone once said: If there's no way out, go further in. I think you took that too far defending your incapable example. You talk of charlatan as if you were different from them. I'm not agreeing with you because your life is not depending on it, but if you were depressed and about to commit suicide, I will agree with you. Contact me when that happens, charlatan.

[Rodriguez8611]

Do you actually believe altruism is an idea?... come one!. Altruism is part of our nature, not our ideas, altruism is even observed in animals. So, what's he going to say about altruism in animals?..... that we trained them for it or something?!

[Donatellangelo]

@Rodriguez8611 Mr. Brook is talking about one thing, and you are talking about another, but you are both using the same word. Curse the English language. What he is describing is obviously negative, but what you are describing is good, and worth having in my opinion.

[Rodriguez8611]

@Donatellangelo No, we're talking about the same thing, altruism have only one meaning, he just decided to believe that it belongs to the world of ideas, when in reality it is part of biology.

[Donatellangelo]

@Rodriguez8611 Oooookaaaaaay.........

[Rodriguez8611]

@Donatellangelo Ok then. lol

[Rodriguez8611]

@Donatellangelo Are you talking about the question from the guy in the audience?

[Donatellangelo]

@Rodriguez8611 No, I'm talking about Mr. Brooks' conception of "altruism".

[Rodriguez8611]

@Donatellangelo I'm confused now. But, whatever.

[Donatellangelo]

@Rodriguez8611 Yeah, Orwellianism has that effect. One word, two meanings. The "free will" that doesn't exist doesn't exist. The free will that I accept does. ;)

[Rodriguez8611]

@Donatellangelo Which one is the free will you accept?

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Actually there are people who try to convince others to act altruisticly, because they are easier to defraud.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Altruism doesn't exist in nature either.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker You write "either", but I can't recall what preceded it.

What do you call the sacrifice (its life) of a squirrel for a relative? What do you call your sacrifice for your offsprings?

Altruism comes out of self-interest, but that self-interest is sometimes protected by sacrificing ones life for the group. Humans is a herd species, so altruism is primal. There's also emotional altruism, which are sacrifices sometimes people make for strangers. To deny this, is to live in delusion.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 squirrels do not sacrifice their lives, rather they attack threats. Humans are not herd species, or else the laws of conscription would not be needed. Why a draft law in any country: rather altruism is the foolishness sold to others to make them more compliant.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker Your ignorance goes beyond of what I can tolerate. Squirrels don't attack predatory animals, you moron, they run away from them just as you would run away from a tiger; but squirrels will alarm its kind if a predatory bird is coming for them, this will cause 2 things: 1.the alarmed squirrels run away, and 2.the predator will focus on the squirrel who alarmed the others causing its death most of the time. Another example of altruism is dogs, who will adopt offsprings from other......

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Ah the squirrel story. A squirrel who alerts the neighborhood to the presence of a predatory bird makes the neighborhood less productive for the predator, so the predator will spend more time in other, more productive neighborhoods. The squirrel alerting knows of the presence of the bird, and has little to fear from it. What does put the squirrel at risk is a hawk that it has not spotted. The benefit of the alerting outweighs the added risk Dr.Donna Hobbs wrote her thesis on it

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker You think that the alerting squirrel is more productive just because it happened to see the predator and now it's alerting?. And how does the alerting squirrel has little to fear when because of its action the hawk is now going after it?. And what happens when there's only 1 hawk?, which happens very often. And supposing that there is more hawks that the squirrel haven't seen and yet still makes the sacrifice to alarm, wouldn't that make it far more......

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 The neighborhood of the squirrel is less productive from the point of view of the hawk. Hawks hunt in solitary fashion, so one is, in fact all that the squirrel needs to concern. The squirrel risk from a hawk which it has seen is perhaps 0.05 its risk from a hawk it has not seen is perhaps 0.50, the alerting squirrel accepts the 0.05 risk to have less chance of the 0.50 risk. A less productive area is less frequented by hawks, so not altruism

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker What? "from the point of view of the hawk", are you serious?. First of all, how do you know the hawks point of view?, second, why do you take the "hawk's point of view" as the true description of events?, third, less doesn't equates with no productivity or quality, the hawk will still make a prey out of them; and fourth, it was you who wrote "What does put the squirrel at risk is a hawk that it has not spotted", and now you're saying that......

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker ......"Hawks hunt in solitary fashion, so one is, in fact all that the squirrel needs to concern". You are on crack or something.

The squirrel doesn't risk the degree of uncertainty Hobbs says, it risks a whole lot more, as a matter of fact, squirrels does this knowingly that alerting could be the last thing it does, which happens most of the time because the hawk stops chasing the other squirrels in order to focus on the one threatening its dinner, its survival.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 You need to read Dr. Hobbs research thesis before posting about squirrel competitions. Just saying...

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker This is a natural selection process because not all squirrels are willing to do that, so the number of the altruistic ones vanishes making its predation less costly.

Next time bother to reply all my comments the same way I do with yours, not the one you think you have a chance getting away with it. Hobbs can clean my car and you my toilet.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 But the point is alerting behavior is in the squirrel's self interest. Therefore it is not altruism. Your example is not valid. your pretense to set up the rules for commenting are also not valid. I reject your rules and you.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker What are you saying? That because the squirrel wanted to help it is therefore not altruism but self-interest?

I'm not setting up rules, I'm outlining the way a discussion should be done in order to have a productive discourse. You seem not to understand productivity after all eh, and so much for the social darwinist talk about "productivity".

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 I am pointing out that the individual squirrel that alerts, itself benefits more from its behavior that its risk, by the hawk spending less time in that neighborhood. The hawk spends less time there because if has trouble with performing a successful ambush of prey, if the squirrel has alerted the neighborhood. Because the squirrel has a net benefits, it is not altruism. If you get paid for your work, it is not altruism. Simple definition.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker Oh my goodness!, I wasted my time. I already refuted that. You keep going in circles. You're not so productive after all, in my country we say: Tell me what you brag about, and I'll tell you what you lack.

The alarming squirrel doesn't benefit directly, its kind does. The alarming squirrel gets eaten, but through altruism and cooperation it preserves its species. Just as you are trying to preserve your ideology arguing with me for no money. Just pure unselfish concern.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 You didn't refute that the squirrel benefits. Rather, you asserted, a falsehood that the squirrel does not benefit. Actual research in evolutionary biology showed that the squirrel has a personal benefit. The benefit for me is that fewer people believe falsehoods about altruism, and so are less easily manipulated by charlatans. Thus I can go longer without having to disrupt my life by shooting thugs and looters

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker Yes I did by the mere fact that the squirrel dies, only on rare occasions it lives to tell the story. The content of your comments is that of unproductive discourse, and assertion, making you the pot screaming to the kettle black. You assert out of ignorance that evolutionary biology favors your view about altruism, sorry to burst your bubble but evolutionary biology have clearly established that altruism is a reality. There's tons of examples supporting this, you just decided to.....

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Sorry, you are once again, wrong. The squirrel rarely dies having spotted the hawk at a distance, less than 5%. By contrast, squirrels often die when they have not seen the hawk. Dr. Donna Hobbs is a friend of mine, and I worked for her thesis advisor at U of Arizona, solving differential equations. You picked out the squirrel, not me, because you foolishly thought it was your best example. You were wrong on that too.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker The squirrels alarming its fellows of an attack dies more often than the others. That 5% you pulled it out of your imagination, or some incompetent research. It doesn't mean that because Hobbs have a PhD she got it right, by your own admission, the most she succeeded at is a thesis, and for a good reason it remained just that. I'll like you to direct me to a scientific work relying on this thesis.

I picked the squirrel example randomly, I do not think that this example is the best.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker ......dangerous for the squirrel, and ultimately, expressing a higher degree of altruism?

And what about the dogs example?, what did Hobbs write about it?

I would say that you should try to educate yourself a little because you sound like a social Darwinist with "we, the productive, only protect ourselves.... the productive..... the productive" type of trash-talk, and social Darwinists are anti-intellectuals and mostly very ignorant.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 You are poorly educated, not knowing about the excellent work of Dr Donna Hobbs on squirrels.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker ......species if their parents have died, or they will sacrifice their life for its human owner. Don't write out of your imagination, admitting your ignorance will make you look far better than what you look like to me right now.

You think that humans is not a herd species because of "the laws of conscription"... what the heck is a matter with you?! You crossed the line here. Even if that retarded logic is considered, voluntary service annihilates that statement.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker You want to ignore human nature for the sake for an idiotic ideology.

Why didn't you answer what do you call your sacrifice for your offsprings? Why didn't you answer what do you call when people sacrifice themselves for strangers? I know why, you're a subnormal fool who lives in the delusion that altruism doesn't exist.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 It is no sacrifice to provide for my children. It is no sacrifice to see the common interests I have with another thinking productive person, and to work toward common goals that serve both our interests. Rather than feed your wife, sacrifice would be to let her starve, and feed people you don't know. That would be a sacrifice, and I would hope that you wouldn't do it. I surely wouldn't.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker First of all, I didn't write about altruism being confined only to people sharing common interests, I wrote that sometimes people would make a sacrifice for strangers who do not share common interests or purpose, and not surprisingly you ignored that part convenientely.

Out of "to work toward common goals" comes altruism too, you are reaffirming what I'm saying, you're just a little myopic and (sorry if I offend you) dumb to realize that, .....

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Working for common interests is not altruism. It is self interest to be able to combine with others to build a better life for all than one could by oneself for oneself. I don't know if you are dumb, or just pretend to know something that isn't so

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker and on top of that you write about "productive this... productive that" which sound more like social darwinism, funny because if your intelligence were to be chosen according to productivity, you may be jobless, literally.

I was not talking about providing for your offspring, but giving your life if his/her survival depended on it, that's altruism too, because you could opt not to. Altruism is a survival mechanism. That you would starve your wife......

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 I have never been unemployed, working and being paid even as a tutor while in school. I never give my life, and I would recommend against it. To give oneself as meat to the wolf would be immoral indeed.

[Rodriguez8611]

@DonMeaker ......for someone you don't know is not altruism, that's more like your type of characteristics, stupidity. Although is reasonable that some people would make that sacrifice if the gain is substantially greater.

You say "Ah the squirrel story" as if you knew, otherwise you would have written something accordingly in response. Where the hell do you take the "less productive neighbor.... more productive neighbor"? Are you a retard or something!!.

[DonMeaker]

@Rodriguez8611 Retard. Stupid. You know nothing. Shame on you.

[wikiporno]

Without altruism there could be no kindness, love, or mercy, all that would be left would be cruelty, hate, and sadism.

[dreadrocksean]

Notice how the critiques of Yaron Brook do not move past name calling and jokes. Some even resort to attacking his speech impediment completely ignorant of the fact that he speaks their language better than they do his or any other for that matter.

They never THOUGHT about the subject and anyone who has, is wrong.

[stephleom]

People thinking that Altruism is "being nice, caring and a model citizen" need to look into the definition of ALTRUISM before bashing Dr Brook

[thesparitan]

Between 9/11 truthers, tea partiers, creationist, UFO freaks, vaccine causes autism people, all religions ever, and this wacko, I know now people will believe anything. Mo matter how stupid. Altruism evolved, someone forgot to tell this jerk off. Dolphins are atlruistic to humans, maybe its because the nazi told them to be that way.

[eaodak]

"Hew-wow, I-ye am a fwucking wetward!" If there is a God, he stuck this clown down with a speech impediment, so the rest of us can more easily recognize the shit spewing from his mouth.

"Mawwiage, oh mawwiage!" Guess we know what happened to the Bishop from Princess Bride after his acting career disintegrated!

Get a real job Yaron you fucking loser!

[totheman]

"The Gaweeks" I love this man's voice.

[grahamjanz]

Helping a friend in need is still a degree of altruism. All that you're saying is that YOU personally feel less obligated to help a friend than a stranger. Saying that only certain people deserve moral worth is your own opinion of morality amongst many. It doesn't make it true and I don't agree with it. That is a form of consequentialism. You would probably kill off a million people to save one person that you thought to be more valuable. Is that true?

[clubsandwedge]

I wouldn't kill off any innocent person and that is a stupid way of putting it. I'm sure I could find a million people not worth what my brother is worth. Sacrifice is putting others above yourself. In the case of me helping somebody worth something to me, I help them because it is in my rational self interest to do so, therefore I am still the most valuable thing. Does the golden rule say, (i) 'do unto everybody as you would have done to you' or (ii)'do unto some as you would have done to you'?

[dreadrocksean]

@clubsandwedge

Ha. I agree. But observe how the Golden Rule breaks down under culture differences. Even sub cultures within a culture destroys it.

Take for instance, S&M. Should a masochist obey the rule?

[clubsandwedge]

If you think social welfare money is going to help more than it will hurt, if you think compromising principles uncritically is sometimes not a bad thing if you're trying to relax or whatever, if you think someone who thinks this to be bad is bigotted, if you think those who have taken away the rights of others deserve the same rights, and if you think that every philosophical issue is a matter of opinion then you are an altruist.

[clubsandwedge]

By the way, anybody serious should ask an idiot what he or she means when they blurt out the word 'consciousness'. By that they could mean volition, perception, morality, spirituality, anything. In fact this word is used strategically by such cretins to their advantage. The mind associates the word with all sorts of stupid bullshit like quantum physics, quantum psychology, clairevoyance, psychedelia and anything that intends to hack down the foundations of thought to mush.

[QhapaqRodriguez]

That's right Grahamjanz, and not just that, but altruism is observed in animals, so there's no political agenda in the nature of altruism.

-QR

[totheman]

@QhapaqRodriguez It is used for political agenda.

[grahamjanz]

Archeologists have found neandertals with broken bones that have healed, and they believe that these neandertals would not have survived without someone caring for them. They also find flowers and furs placed in their graves, which I don't think they would have done if they weren't altruistic. Altruism has an origin that exists before Homo sapien.

[clubsandwedge]

Altruism is not the same as rational self-interest. It's not moral to value everybody in the world. Value is something given to people who are morally worth it. Tribes value each other by choice, otherwise it would not be a tribe, whereas hypocritical altruists value everything that moves; there is no hint of voluntarism. The mind forces itself dogmatically to hurt itself. Helping a friend in need is not the same as forcing yourself to love your enemy.

[didate]

Why be so categorical about altruism and pursuit of self-interest? At times, altruism is just a way to attain a personal goal in a social setting, or a way to justify meaning to one's life achievements.

Rand, herself, used an example of a man persuing his self interests by giving up his own life in order to save his mate's life. Life is not black and white.

Rand had some radical, but clever ideas, however, some of her followers, including Leonard Peikoff' are plain wacky.

[Miggins88]

Objectivism is a philosophy for fools. Put down Ayn Rand and read some of Murray Rothbard.

[oscar7557]

explain? i've heard Rothbard's speeches on the FED but most of the time he just comes off as a conspiracy theorist. And i have yet to read an Austrian economist who doesnt have a flawed epistemology.

[blaziermissy]

nationalistic bias

[Bigturns33]

If its a similar philosophy that you have in the sense of economics then dont fight against it. Ayn Rand is ultra free capitalistic and for extreme liberty. Do not fight that.

[punitive]

agreed 100%

[hhiippiittyy]

Evolutionary epistomology! Philosophers need to realize that science has caught up with their ideas up to the 80s or so. There is plenty of philosophical musing that needs to be done, but let it be done in arenas that have not been made obsolete by scientific process.

[clubsandwedge]

No Metaphysics can ever be made obsolete by Science. The very fact that you think it can is evidence of your Pragmatic asshattery. Why is Science the way it is? Why do Objectivists despise Quantum Physics? Essentially because it is a mess created by Pragmatists. That something 'works' does not make it true at all. A description is not an explanation. The idea of description transcending explanation is a major fault of 20th century thinking. Thank you, asshole Pragmatists.

[hhiippiittyy]

@clubsandwedge i didnt even mention metaphysics, and your conflation of the two is only evidence of your meatheadery.

[clubsandwedge]

@hhiippiittyy

You either take the stance that science has the ability to answer metaphysical questions or you don't. I've seen a lot of new-age assholes go around saying all sorts about spacetime, wormholes, quarks, quantum magic, etc, while simultaneously denying the validity of all metaphysical questions.

[Bigturns33]

I am a student of Objectivism. It depends on how your looking at it. That is altruism. Some animals developed from in some sense and some elements of altruism. Again people have to define altruism. The objective view is giving up that which is of value for something that is not of value. If you do something from someone and you love them because you value them deeply, this is not altruism, it is self gratifying and stimulates your ego, it makes you feel good.

[PLCvideo]

Mowal?

[Entropy56]

Look, I am sympathetic to Rand but this idea that there was a conspiracy to write the New Testament as a means to political power is unfounded. You'd have to demonstrate that someone in power wrote the Gospels and would benefit from it. You have to prove who wrote it if it wasn't Paul and the other disciples. We don't need to make up things. The fact that the Bible says what it says and is followed by many is enough to discuss the implications. Please dont make things up.

[sweetmpea55]

"We don't need to make up things" and "bible" being in the same sentence nearly made me fall out of my chair i laughed so hard..

HA HA!!

[Entropy56]

Hey there, I didn't say it was true. Origins of the Bible are from those that held political power. What Yaron in the video was saying has so proof. Often the Bible is critical of those in power. Why would King David allow the Bible to expose his affair with Bathsheba? Yaron made up this conspiracy theory and it is a shame he speculated about it.

[DavidsIllustrations]

Solon predates christianity, his actions were largely altruistic

[ziv2]

it is more historical discription and less an explanation. I think the origin of altruism is parallel to the seeking for meaning to actions (= life) anyway, if something is candidate to be your gaol of morral and actions- then it has to be more importent then your physical life.

[g0ssage]

Nietche's explanation is older? It must be better then. We all know that the best way to measure an idea is by how old it is.

[dgferreira]

Actually, Nietsche's explanation is both older and better than this one. Nietsche confined itself to religion (and identified "the priest class" as the autocracts this guy mentioned).

Altruism has a great deal more to it than self-sacrifice, either of the religious kind or not. Objectivism is incredibly simplistic on this matter.

[Beethovens7th]

Fascinating.

[fungku777]

Wow, I wish i could afford to go to Berkeley. This guy is spot on.

[thaguy6502]

Dr. Brook doesn't teach at Berkeley, but there is an active Objectivist club on campus, which among other things, has been actively hosting speakers including Dr Brook.

This was a great lecture, and I especially enjoyed the Q&A portion. I'm very happy to see these excerpts online!

[ShoelessLlama]

Nietzsche, as flawed as he is, has a similar explanation for the origins of altruism. Nothing like mysticism/statism/collectivism to help the masters collect slaves.

[shovelcharge]

never heard this explanation before

[chopsky]

For those of us around the world unable to attend ARI's lectures, these videos are truly a goldmine.

Thank you.

[GamblerJustice]

They sure are!