The (Possible) Virtue of Benevolence

[KPO'M 0]

Perhaps this is a more appropriate forum than R&R to discuss benevolence in more detail. The main questions are as follows:

• Is benevolence a virtue?
  
• If yes, is it a primary virtue?
  
• If no, why not?
  
• Is being benevolent compatible with Objectivism? Is it incompatible?
  
• Should a person be benevolent?
  

[RayK 0]

Benevolence is defined as an inclination to perform kind, charitable acts. If we can agree on this definition, then I would say that it is not a major virtue and can be a vice if not applied properly/rationally which means according to one's own self-interest. Also, If a person was to hold benevolence as a major virtue, then they are stating (whether explicit or not) that the man's life is full of misery and that he requires charity to survive, this is of course false. To state that benevolence is a major virtue is to also state that man has a duty to his fellow men and this is also false.

A person can be benevolent when it is not a sacrifice and the person they are helping has had nothing to do with thier situation. So it would be immoral for a person to give their money to a next door neighbor that has lost their job because of drug use. But it would be moral to help someone that you value that has lost their job because the company they worked for went out of business because government regulations forced them out of business.

[Paul's Here 0]

Perhaps this is a more appropriate forum than R&R to discuss benevolence in more detail. The main questions are as follows:

• Is benevolence a virtue?
  
• If yes, is it a primary virtue?
  
• If no, why not?
  
• Is being benevolent compatible with Objectivism? Is it incompatible?
  
• Should a person be benevolent?
  

If I remember correctly, this is discussed in detail by Tara Smith in Viable Values. She concludes that benevolence is not a major virtue. (I don't have references right now because I'm away on vacation.) But I'd suggest you check out her book.

[Henryk 0]

Benevolence to me is more of an attitude ( conscious or not) when interacting with others. So I agree with that part of definition emphasising

kindness. Personally I don't think benevolence is a virtue, in the sense of achieving or going after a value. I think It's on par with the concept of generosity; both can be used in adverse manner. The primary virtues on the other hand are the means of achieving a positive. As far as compatibility, I tend to think the concept is morally neutral.

[B. Royce 0]

I agree with Henry. By far, in the greatest number of instances in which I have heard the word "benevolence" used it has been in a statement such as, "He has a benevolent attitude". From what I have observed, outwardly in others, and within myself, a benevolent attitude is one in which the best is assumed in other people (until and unless they prove themselves to be bad people). But not only is it assumed, it is wished for, as in, "I wish you success" (where, of course, the feeling expressed is genuine). Benevolence, to me, is a type of loving the good for being the good, while expecting to find the good around each and every corner. But it is not a virtue; like happiness, it is the result of virtue.

To try to make benevolence a virtue is to try to reverse the law of cause and effect. The attempt is made by intimating that benevolence is not an attitude, but specific actions, and if you perform these actions then you are virtuous---without having to be genuinely virtuous. This attempt at reversal also takes no cognizance of "benevolent attitude", which it wants to undercut.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------

a benevolent attitude is one in which the best is assumed in other people (until and unless they prove themselves to be bad people). But not only is it assumed, it is wished for, as in, "I wish you success" (where, of course, the feeling expressed is genuine). Benevolence, to me, is a type of loving the good for being the good, while expecting to find the good around each and every corner. But it is not a virtue; like happiness, it is the result of virtue.

-------

But why make that assumption (good rather than bad or indifferent)? Is it not best to wait until evidence is found upon which a judgment can be made? If you were hiking in a jungle and came upon some unknown fruit, would you assume that it is safe to eat until it is proved to be bad?

This issue has been brought up over the years. I think the best argument against it being a primary or major virtue is that there is no context that can be defined in which acting with benevolence is always proper.

[PhilO 0]

But why make that assumption (good rather than bad or indifferent)? Is it not best to wait until evidence is found upon which a judgment can be made? If you were hiking in a jungle and came upon some unknown fruit, would you assume that it is safe to eat until it is proved to be bad?

I think that's a fundamentally wrong analogy. Any level headed person can form *some* kind of quick judgment about the nature of a stranger, and I think we all do it subconsciously, and usually also consciously. Of course one's premises and reality focus affects one's judgment as well. Some would unblinkingly make no assumptions about suddenly seeing a stranger appear with numerous twisted tattoos visible on their arms wearing a t-shirt with a gun; personally I would be nervous and "on extra alert".

It would certainly make a difference if it were a typical stranger in a decent city in the world vs. one met in a dictatorship. That the typical stranger in Toyko or Singapore or Indianapolis would be more benevolent and non-threatening than somebody who grew up in Havana is real and obvious.

[Cometmaker 0]

I think that's a fundamentally wrong analogy. Any level headed person can form *some* kind of quick judgment about the nature of a stranger, and I think we all do it subconsciously, and usually also consciously. Of course one's premises and reality focus affects one's judgment as well. Some would unblinkingly make no assumptions about suddenly seeing a stranger appear with numerous twisted tattoos visible on their arms wearing a t-shirt with a gun; personally I would be nervous and "on extra alert".

Perceived benevolence is contextual.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But why make that assumption (good rather than bad or indifferent)? Is it not best to wait until evidence is found upon which a judgment can be made?

I feel benevolent and act benevolently toward people I know to be good and toward people are potentially good.

Men have free will and I assume everyone has the potentiality to be a good person and of value to me -- until and unless I have evidence to the contrary.

In any case, I do not consider benevolence extended towards someone's actual or potential good to be a separate virtue but simply an instance of the virtue of justice since it involves giving others what they deserve.

[Paul's Here 0]

But why make that assumption (good rather than bad or indifferent)? Is it not best to wait until evidence is found upon which a judgment can be made? If you were hiking in a jungle and came upon some unknown fruit, would you assume that it is safe to eat until it is proved to be bad?

I think that's a fundamentally wrong analogy. Any level headed person can form *some* kind of quick judgment about the nature of a stranger, and I think we all do it subconsciously, and usually also consciously. Of course one's premises and reality focus affects one's judgment as well. Some would unblinkingly make no assumptions about suddenly seeing a stranger appear with numerous twisted tattoos visible on their arms wearing a t-shirt with a gun; personally I would be nervous and "on extra alert".

It would certainly make a difference if it were a typical stranger in a decent city in the world vs. one met in a dictatorship. That the typical stranger in Toyko or Singapore or Indianapolis would be more benevolent and non-threatening than somebody who grew up in Havana is real and obvious.

I think your comment is outside of the context in which 'benevolence' as a virtue is typically discussed. And, actually, it is a good criticism of why benevolence is not a virtue in a primary moral sense, which is what my analogy focused on. So I do believe it is a good analogy in that it shows that it is wrong to make assumptions, just as you don't make assumptions. When you meet a stranger, the fact that he doesn't jump on you and pound you with his fists is evidence that is not an assumption.

No one would enter an Amtrak train if he thought that there were 15 muggers in the car. Such an example is not an issue of whether or not benevolence is a virtue.

[B. Royce 0]

--------

a benevolent attitude is one in which the best is assumed in other people (until and unless they prove themselves to be bad people). But not only is it assumed, it is wished for, as in, "I wish you success" (where, of course, the feeling expressed is genuine). Benevolence, to me, is a type of loving the good for being the good, while expecting to find the good around each and every corner. But it is not a virtue; like happiness, it is the result of virtue.

-------

But why make that assumption (good rather than bad or indifferent)? Is it not best to wait until evidence is found upon which a judgment can be made? If you were hiking in a jungle and came upon some unknown fruit, would you assume that it is safe to eat until it is proved to be bad?

This issue has been brought up over the years. I think the best argument against it being a primary or major virtue is that there is no context that can be defined in which acting with benevolence is always proper.

If I am hiking (as opposed to hunting or fleeing) in a jungle my attitude is already one of benevolence. I am not thinking that anyone is a danger to me, or that my every move is being watched by malevolent men. Just like when I finish a poem, I go out for a walk and the streetlights, flowers, and all colors of the world seem more bright; I look at people going into stores and I (mentally) wish them happy purchases. My feeling of benevolence has really nothing to do with specific people; it is rather my blessing on a world in which great things are possible. The idea of being on the watch for evidence for or against people (in general) in order to determine what my attitude should be doesn't make sense.

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------

Just like when I finish a poem, I go out for a walk and the streetlights, flowers, and all colors of the world seem more bright; I look at people going into stores and I (mentally) wish them happy purchases. My feeling of benevolence has really nothing to do with specific people; it is rather my blessing on a world in which great things are possible. The idea of being on the watch for evidence for or against people (in general) in order to determine what my attitude should be doesn't make sense.

That is your expression of the "benevolent universe" principle which is different than considering benevolence as a virtue.

[Paul's Here 0]

But why make that assumption (good rather than bad or indifferent)? Is it not best to wait until evidence is found upon which a judgment can be made?

I feel benevolent and act benevolently toward people I know to be good and toward people are potentially good.

Men have free will and I assume everyone has the potentiality to be a good person and of value to me -- until and unless I have evidence to the contrary.

I'm not sure if you are supporting my statement or arguing against it. If you know that people are good or are potentially good, then you must have evidence of it. So what are you assuming? Why do you need evidence to the contrary and not evidence in support? Why is it a concern to you whether some worker in Cambodia is a good person or of potential value to you? Man is a rational animal means that each individual has the potential to exercise reason, but until such reason is exercised, and that you know it, of what value is that person/stranger to you?

In any case, I do not consider benevolence extended towards someone's actual or potential good to be a separate virtue but simply an instance of the virtue of justice since it involves giving others what they deserve.

Giving people what they deserve, based upon what they've earned. Which, to me, means observe other people, their behavior, and evaluate accordingly and objectively. No assumption is needed to base an evaluation on or any prejudgment.

[bborg 0]

Giving people what they deserve, based upon what they've earned. Which, to me, means observe other people, their behavior, and evaluate accordingly and objectively. No assumption is needed to base an evaluation on or any prejudgment.

I think the issue, though, is that we often have to deal with people without having the observations necessary to make that judgment. What guidelines do you use when you talk to strangers? Are you friendly? Polite? Or are you rude and dismissive? If you don't know the person, you can't possibly know whether they deserve your kindness, but I'm sure you still deal with them in one way or another.

Benevolence, as far as I understand it, means treating people as potential values rather than with suspicion. They are potentially good because they, like you, have a rational faculty and they share the same requirements of survival. It's not so much an assumption (you're not assuming they're good), as it is focusing on value-creation.

This isn't an idea I have totally fleshed out, I should admit. However to help illustrate, one issue I'm constantly faced with is charity. DC, like most cities, is filled with panhandlers. I generally ignore them. I've gone down the same streets and seen the same beggars day after day for months at a time. There is one area I walk past regularly these days that has a handicapped man who sits in this very expensive looking cushy motorized chair. He dresses well, looks clean and well-fed, but sits in the same spot every day with a cup out begging for money. That's a good case where you have evidence that someone is not deserving of your generosity. I would even think, "He's probably collecting Medicaid money extorted from me, and look what he's done with it."

However, I've been in many situations, as I'm sure you have, when I thought it was proper to show kindness. I gave change to a kid once who had money but no denomination small enough to ride the bus. I've given people change a bunch of times who I thought looked to be in honest predicaments. I give people directions when I can, as I'm sure most people do. One time I was meeting my sister in the city when she came with a group from her school, and a girl at the Metro asked me for directions to the Air and Space Museum, where I was meeting my sister. We walked together, and I let her come along with us while we did some touristy stuff in the museum and around the mall. Ok, maybe I did it because she was a girl and seemed nice. But anyway, the point is it's not like these people had done anything I knew of to earn my kindness. Actually, I never saw any of them again, so it's not even that I was hoping to become friends with them. I just figured they were potentially good people and so I wanted to help them out.

But then, I've found that how I treat people is often just as dependent on my mood. I confess I have given to beggars a couple times when I was feeling really good. It really had nothing to do with them. Maybe that sounds strange, though, or is not an example of benevolence. As I said, I haven't worked it out completely.

[ewv 0]

...But anyway, the point is it's not like these people had done anything I knew of to earn my kindness. Actually, I never saw any of them again, so it's not even that I was hoping to become friends with them. I just figured they were potentially good people and so I wanted to help them out.

And because it the kind of world you want to live in routinely?

But then, I've found that how I treat people is often just as dependent on my mood. I confess I have given to beggars a couple times when I was feeling really good. It really had nothing to do with them. Maybe that sounds strange, though, or is not an example of benevolence. As I said, I haven't worked it out completely.

It shouldn't depend on your mood in that way. If you aren't feeling well, for whatever reason, you need not take the energy to express your benevolence the way you ordinarily wood, but your mood should not determine whether you give things away to beggars, who without further evidence, do not deserve it regardless of your "mood".

[KurtColville 0]

...But anyway, the point is it's not like these people had done anything I knew of to earn my kindness. Actually, I never saw any of them again, so it's not even that I was hoping to become friends with them. I just figured they were potentially good people and so I wanted to help them out.

But then, I've found that how I treat people is often just as dependent on my mood. I confess I have given to beggars a couple times when I was feeling really good. It really had nothing to do with them. Maybe that sounds strange, though, or is not an example of benevolence. As I said, I haven't worked it out completely.

I agree with your general view. Look at the difference between how you valued the guy in the luxury wheelechair and the girl asking for directions. Both people gave you some evidence to weigh on your "benevolence scale". If the girl was surly or acted like you owed her directions, or if she was asking for directions to the environmentalist or Muslim supremacy march, you're probably not going to oblige.

I think your spontaneity in offering charity comes from your feeling good about life in general, as an extension of feeling good about yourself. In that moment, you recognize a broad measure of your success in living. You feel efficacious. You feel that your life is good and that you can keep making it good. And you recognize that what makes life good for you is easily available to others. One of those things is knowing that we live in a world in which life-affirming values can be acheived. That means that most people we meet on the street will act reasonably rational towards us. We have the implicit recognition that we have more to benefit from dealing with strangers than to fear. If we lived in a culture, like some totalitarian states, in which a brief encounter with any stranger might backfire on you, where they use information from your exchange against you or try to dupe you, or are just generally unpleasant, you'd reserve your benevolence only for those you really knew and cared about. I think a common sentiment in Soviet bloc countries was, "I can't afford to deal with this stranger. I have no idea how it might come to haunt me. I see people stab each other in the back all the time, so it's just not worth it -- I'll keep my head down and move on." That sentiment persists in backwards cultures, too. But thankfully we don't live in such a culture. Benevolent acts are common, and when judged properly, reinforce a rational morality in our culture.

[B. Royce 0]

-----------

Just like when I finish a poem, I go out for a walk and the streetlights, flowers, and all colors of the world seem more bright; I look at people going into stores and I (mentally) wish them happy purchases. My feeling of benevolence has really nothing to do with specific people; it is rather my blessing on a world in which great things are possible. The idea of being on the watch for evidence for or against people (in general) in order to determine what my attitude should be doesn't make sense.

That is your expression of the "benevolent universe" principle which is different than considering benevolence as a virtue.

That's correct, because I don't consider benevolence to be a virtue; it's so obviously not.

[Paul's Here 0]

Giving people what they deserve, based upon what they've earned. Which, to me, means observe other people, their behavior, and evaluate accordingly and objectively. No assumption is needed to base an evaluation on or any prejudgment.

I think the issue, though, is that we often have to deal with people without having the observations necessary to make that judgment. What guidelines do you use when you talk to strangers? Are you friendly? Polite? Or are you rude and dismissive? If you don't know the person, you can't possibly know whether they deserve your kindness, but I'm sure you still deal with them in one way or another.

But if you've "talked" with them, you have evidence to form an opinion or judgment about whether they deserve kindness. Whether I am friendly, polite, rude or dismissive does not depend upon any assumption on my part about other people. It depends upon my view of myself and what I choose to convey to others about myself. The fact that the stranger is polite, soft spoken, and open (as well as you observing their body language) should be grounds for a judgment. If the person said, "Please give me a ride" and then pulled a knife on you, your kindness would fade away.

Benevolence, as far as I understand it, means treating people as potential values rather than with suspicion. They are potentially good because they, like you, have a rational faculty and they share the same requirements of survival. It's not so much an assumption (you're not assuming they're good), as it is focusing on value-creation.

This isn't an idea I have totally fleshed out, I should admit. However to help illustrate, one issue I'm constantly faced with is charity. DC, like most cities, is filled with panhandlers. I generally ignore them. I've gone down the same streets and seen the same beggars day after day for months at a time. There is one area I walk past regularly these days that has a handicapped man who sits in this very expensive looking cushy motorized chair. He dresses well, looks clean and well-fed, but sits in the same spot every day with a cup out begging for money. That's a good case where you have evidence that someone is not deserving of your generosity. I would even think, "He's probably collecting Medicaid money extorted from me, and look what he's done with it."

However, I've been in many situations, as I'm sure you have, when I thought it was proper to show kindness. I gave change to a kid once who had money but no denomination small enough to ride the bus. I've given people change a bunch of times who I thought looked to be in honest predicaments. I give people directions when I can, as I'm sure most people do. One time I was meeting my sister in the city when she came with a group from her school, and a girl at the Metro asked me for directions to the Air and Space Museum, where I was meeting my sister. We walked together, and I let her come along with us while we did some touristy stuff in the museum and around the mall. Ok, maybe I did it because she was a girl and seemed nice. But anyway, the point is it's not like these people had done anything I knew of to earn my kindness. Actually, I never saw any of them again, so it's not even that I was hoping to become friends with them. I just figured they were potentially good people and so I wanted to help them out.

But then, I've found that how I treat people is often just as dependent on my mood. I confess I have given to beggars a couple times when I was feeling really good. It really had nothing to do with them. Maybe that sounds strange, though, or is not an example of benevolence. As I said, I haven't worked it out completely.

I am not arguing against being kind or benevolent or generous with strangers. I am only saying that one does not need to make assumptions or prejudgments about the nature of the people with whom one has never had interactions but may ultimately interact with in a manner requiring benevolence. One can get information just by saying "hello" and seeing how the other person responds in terms of content or tone or facial expression.

[B. Royce 0]

When I meet a new person (say, a new forklift driver at work) I am benevolent toward him in so far as I expect the best from him in learning his job and doing it right. But that is not giving him kindness. He may not be soft-spoken but, perhaps, rather rough and abrupt. However, as long as he pays attention, he may prove to be a valuable worker.

[jordanz 0]

In any case, I do not consider benevolence extended towards someone's actual or potential good to be a separate virtue but simply an instance of the virtue of justice since it involves giving others what they deserve.

This confuses me. What, then, is the difference between benevolence and justice? Also, given that you see benevolence as an instance of justice, why issues do you have with considering benevolence a virtue?

[jordanz 0]

Benevolence is defined as an inclination to perform kind, charitable acts.

This is similar to how my dictionary defines it. However, my dictionary also defines "selfishness" and "altruism" in mundane ways. As a contrast, here is how Kelley defines benevolence:

A commitment to treating others as potential trading partners by recognizing their humanity and individuality and acting accordingly.

The Logical Structure of Objectivism, Chapter 6

[Arnold 0]

It is generally beneficial to regard others in a friendly benevolent way, since co-operation makes life easier.

[styg50 0]

A commitment to treating others as potential trading partners by recognizing their humanity and individuality and acting accordingly.

The Logical Structure of Objectivism, Chapter 6

What if the other person doesn't have any humanity or individuality? Treating them benevolently as a potential trading partner is, what I believe they call, "turning the other cheek."

[Henryk 0]

I think it's more than cost-benefit calcualtion that's involved in acting benevolently: mostly it has to do with one's sense of life.

[bborg 0]

This is similar to how my dictionary defines it. However, my dictionary also defines "selfishness" and "altruism" in mundane ways. As a contrast, here is how Kelley defines benevolence:

A commitment to treating others as potential trading partners by recognizing their humanity and individuality and acting accordingly.

The Logical Structure of Objectivism, Chapter 6

Does he define "humanity"?