 So there are two senses, two ways in which I invented use of benevolence, I mean they're both consistent, but they're two distinct ways. One is this idea of having a benevolent universe premise. A benevolent universe premise is the idea that the moral is the practical in a sense. It's the idea that's short of accidents, short of crazy, random, bad things happening. That if you live the good life, you will be successful and you will achieve happiness. So the benevolent universe is the idea that because of the way we look at the world, because of the way immorality has been induced, if you will, because of the way immorality is logically tied to the facts of reality, it will work. And therefore our general attitude should be an attitude that says if I do the right things in life, if I live a good life, good things will happen. I will be successful. I will achieve prosperity. I will achieve my goals. I will achieve my values. Rather than constantly thinking about all the things that can go wrong, all the pitfalls, all the bad stuff, all the things that can destroy. How do you know it's going to work this time? To quote Leonard Peacock, the benevolent universe does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man, or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral. It simply is, it's indifferent to you, right? You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is benevolent in the sense that if you do adapt to it, if you do think value and act rationally, then you can, and barring accidents, you will achieve your values. You will because those values are based on reality. So it's not magic that the universe just accommodates me. It's because I'm accommodating it. It's because I'm going by the facts. It's because I'm using reason. It's because I'm adapting to reality that things will work. That things will work. In news, you write, pain, suffering, failure, do not have metaphysical significance. They do not reveal the nature of reality. Ainran's heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e. metaphysically. You remember when Dagny asked Ragnar in the Valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea? He answers, I quote, just a part of this passage. Quote, we do not think the tragedy is a natural state. We do not live in chaotic dread of disaster. We do not expect disasters until we have specific reasons to expect it. And when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness but suffering that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we will guard as an abnormal exception in human life. Now compare this to Jordan Peterson. Compare this idea in Jordan Peterson that life, the essence of life is suffering. The tragedy is baked in because we're going to die. That we should expect the disaster. Indeed, plan for it. Get married based on the idea that life is going to be a disaster and you want somebody who can help you, marry a nurse. And then for Jordan Peterson, happiness is the miracle. Happiness is the fluke. Happiness is the abnormality. Disaster is the normal. Disaster is the thing that happens all the time. Disaster is what we should expect at every corner. Pain and suffering, that's the essence of life. But that's because he's coming at it from the perspective of altruism and pain and suffering is the essence of sacrifice. It's the essence of altruism. For objectivism, because we're rational. Because we're rational in the sense that we're adapting to reality. We're looking for facts. Our morality is based on human nature and what works in reality and what doesn't. We are confident that if we stick to the facts, we stick to reason, we stick to rationality, we will be successful. And that is the natural state because that's how we survive. That's how we thrive. Peacock continues, this is why Iron Man's Heroes respond to disaster when it does strike with an instantaneous response, with a single instantaneous response. Action, what can they do? If there's any chance at all, they refuse to accept defeat. They do what they can to counter the danger because they are on the premise that success, not failure, is to be expected. So, Rand is an advocate of a benevolent universe present. Because she's an advocate of reason, rationality, and the primacy of reality, of facts. Why is it inevitable to suffer? I don't know what that even means. And I don't think it's true. I don't think it's inevitable to suffer. I mean, some people, you know, pain, you can suffer through pain, but that's not suffering. Yeah, pain is part of life. But it's not an important part of life. It's not what you build your life around. You build your life around achieving happiness. And yeah, on the way, you're going to bump your knee into something and you're going to feel pain. So what? There's nothing important about suffering. Other than it should be avoided whenever possible. And for Jordan Peterson, it is what's important. It is what's inevitable. And I'm saying if you act right, if you're moral, if you pursue morality, what's inevitable is happiness. Not suffering. So that is one sense in which benevolence is used. And let's go through the second sense, and that is the sense of attitude towards other people. Benevolence towards other people. Whether it's kindness or charity or just being nice to people. Having a friendly, positive, engaging attitude towards other people. And particularly here, we're talking about particularly towards strangers. That is, why should one open a door to a stranger? Why should one help out somebody who's, I don't know, taken a fall? Why should you engage in a kind of friendly, positive interaction with people you don't know? And when is it appropriate, and how is it appropriate, and how much is it appropriate to provide somebody with charity, with a gift, if you will? So just to deal with this point, Harold says, J.P. is prone to depression. He said, I believe he is prone to depression. That colors your view towards setbacks in life and turns it into suffering. Yes. But that should color your life in the sense that what you should want to do is fix it, fix the being prone to depression. Depression is not the natural state of man. I know Jordan Peterson is a psychiatrist. So he sees a lot of depressed people. He sees miserable people. He sees suffering all around him. I get it. But I wouldn't want to see a psychiatrist, a psychologist that says, yep, I see suffering and depression all around me. That's a state of nature. You've got to manage it. You've got to find ways to just manage it. Survive through it. Be a man. Just live through it. No. I yell. That's wrong. I want you to teach me as my psychiatrist, my psychologist, how to overcome it. How to get rid of it. How to get back on a path towards happiness. I don't want to be told, my psychologist, the psychiatrist, that happiness is impossible. That it's a fluke. That if you're lucky, you'll get it. I want him to help me set on the path. Set my thinking right and integrate so my thinking can integrate with my emotions. And if we need to use drugs in order to shake up my psychology in order to get me right, fine. Drugs, I have nothing against drugs. But I want to be on a path of success, not on a path of managing defeat. Managing defeat is what a waste of a life. What's the point? I want psychologists to teach me how to live better. How to achieve. I think that's what a good psychologist does. He doesn't accept defeat. He doesn't accept depression as a state of nature. He doesn't accept suffering as a state of nature. He builds you up to overcome and set you on a path for success. Error correction process, one of the Freemen says. Yes. That's what good psychology, psychology is. Now, if you're a determinist, if you believe, you know, we're just born depressed. Just born with certain chemicals. It's just the way it is. Then yeah, that's all you have. But I don't believe that. I'm a free will. I know free will exists. I know you can take control over your own life. I know you can manage your own life. And yes, all kinds of things might have caused depression that you have no control over. Okay, let's fix it. I'm going into therapy wanting to fix this and get on a path towards happiness. It's all about pursuing success, not about managing defeat. And Jordan Peterson is about managing defeat. Where was I? Yeah, you should get me on Jordan Peterson's podcast. That would be a lot of fun. I'd love to be on Jordan Peterson's podcast. So what about this benevolence towards other people being friendly, being kind, being nice, being charitable? Why? What is it about opening a door to somebody saying hello to strangers in the street? Good morning. You know, I often say good morning to people walking out or just a nod and a smile. I mean, why? What's in it for you? If somebody falls down, you go and you check up on them, you make sure they're okay, you offer some help. Why? We talked about pets earlier. And you know, pets are animals are living things and living things are value. Life is a value. If you value yourself, you're valuing life and how amazing life is and how wonderful it is for you. For me, life more broadly is a value. I like to see living things thrive and succeed. I love to see success elsewhere because that reinforces this empirical idea, empirical knowledge that I have. That life is about success. Life is about happiness. Life is about progress. And I don't like to see failure and suffering because I value life. So if at very little effort to myself, I can put a smile on somebody else's face and move them just an iota closer to being happy, successful in some little way, that makes me a little bit happier because I've just seen another instant of that ability to be successful in life. If I can hold the door for somebody to walk in, cost me nothing. Now look, it's really important to know the context, right? If you stop to open the door to a stranger in the middle of an emergency, a medical emergency to your kid, which you should be rushing to the hospital and instead you stop to open the door for somebody or to help somebody who's just fallen, then you're screwed up, be benevolent is not to sacrifice. The whole idea of benevolence is a small cost, bigger benefit. Hold the door to somebody, they smile back at you, it's just pleasant. It reaffirms the value of life, the value of a smile, the value of positivity, of being positive. Hasn't cost you anything or hasn't cost you much. And the same thing is true, so in that sense, it's selfish. You're getting something out of it and you never know. You might say good morning to some stranger and they might answer you and you might start a conversation as a consequence and you might discover a friend. Now, a friend is a huge value and hard to find and rare. And how are you going to find friends if you're not going to be responsive and sense kind and benevolent? You might find your next employer, you might find the love of your life. Again, benevolence is not somebody says zero sum, it's not zero sum. The other says stupid zero sum ideology, that's right. It's not zero sum. To benefit others benefits you up to a point, right? There's a point at which it stops. Again, if opening the door is a sacrifice because you're giving up something greater than what you're going to get, don't do it. But most days, 99% of the time, it's just a moment. I'm not in that much of a rush. I get a smile back or thank you back and on we go. And it reinforces this idea that all human people are basically good. Life is good. Happiness, well, not happiness, but positivity is possible. And of course, that's kind of world you want to live. You want to live in a world in which people are nice to one another. They're holding doors to one another. They're benevolent to one another. They're not obnoxious and angry and yelling and unpleasant. I mean, think about the stress that when you meet somebody like that causes you. You don't want to be close to people like that. And if you're that person, people don't want to be close to you. And if other people are valued to you, if they are trading potential, friendship potential, romantic potential, employer potential, employee potential, why do it? It's all negative. So, you know, I don't want to be all Talmud on you. Benny 1776 says this is Talmud, right? Getting a person to smile can change their life. Maybe it can. Maybe it can't. I don't know. You know, a lot of times people have made me smile and it didn't change my life. So it's not the point. I'm not trying to change somebody's life. I'm trying to create for myself a more pleasant environment in which to live. I'm trying to create for myself more positive interactions with other people that have the potential to be win-win. Ginger, thank you. That is very, very generous and benevolent. I really appreciate that. Ginger just gave $100 and put us well over the $600. So we're now basically at $691. So almost at $700. If we want to go to $1,000 tonight might be the night, you know, we might try to do it again in New Year's Eve, but tonight might be the night. And I don't know why Nikoka wants to give me the Communist Manifesto for Christmas. I'm not sure why that is, that is interesting. But of course, there's a limit to how kind you want to be to strangers. There's a limit to how much charity you're going to give. You know, Iron Man writes about charity that it's, yeah, it's just not that important. Benevolence, charity are minor virtues under the category generally of justice. The category of how you treat other people. But it's certainly not a moral duty. It's not what gets you moral credit. It's not what makes you a good person. But help by the person, particularly if they're worthy of help. Or maybe, you know, they're not unworthy. So you never want to help somebody who is unworthy of your help. So Iron Man writes, I even got charity as a marginal issue. What I'm fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue. So benevolence, charity, it's a minor virtue. It's an aspect of justice. You want to help people who deserve your help, who are basically good people. You want to give most people the benefit of the doubt. There's no reason to assume somebody's bad without having any facts to base it on. Any evidence to base it on. Right? So, you know, it's, the sad thing is that altruism is what makes us malevolent. Because altruism demands that I sacrifice for you. So I resent you because I'm sacrificing for you. Or maybe I'm not sacrificing for you, but I resent you because I know I'm supposed to sacrifice for you. And the fact that I'm supposed to sacrifice for you makes me feel guilty that I'm not. So a whole interaction before we even get started is a negative one. Is one that is emotionally draining on me. I either feel guilty or I feel resentment. Whereas if you're rationally and self-interested, your whole interaction with other people is a values-based one. What value do they have to offer me? What values do I have to offer them? How do we exchange? How do we get a trade here? I'll open the door. Maybe they'll smile. Maybe they say, thank you. Maybe not. But, you know, no big deal. Altruism makes us malevolent. I mean, at this point it's not mine. Again, if you want, you can read in Ayn Rand, she says, The fact that a man has no claim on others, that is, not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as he's right, does not preclude or prohibit goodwill among men and does not make it immoral to offer or accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance. It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation and the receiver as a helpless, miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage in the lives of others, a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice, but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal. Oh, God, she could write. To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism's terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste. Then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help when it is offered, not as a moral duty but as an act of goodwill and generosity when the giver can afford, that is, when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part and when it is offered in response to the receiver's virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses, or moral failure and not in the grounds of his needs as such. Now that's brilliant. That's from the question of scholarships in The Objectivist of June 1966. Thank you for listening or watching The Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com. I go to Patreon, subscribe star locals, and just making an appropriate contribution on any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see The Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and, of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. Those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.