Virtues and the individual

[Maxcady10001]

Are what we consider virtues only an individual's ruination? It seems all virtues are the denial life and ourselves, and we praise virtues because when another possesses them we benefit, though we do not act virtuously. An example is the hard working man. We praise those who slave away in the name of an "honest day's work," because they are sacrificing themselves for us. What good are virtues?

[LuckyR]

Examples, please.

[Maxcady10001]

I already gave you the hard working or the obedient man. Obedience is usually deemed a virtue. Courage, is another example. The man who risks his life to save others, is deemed virtuous. Of course his behavior would be praised, everything that is self sacrificing is praised. Courage and obedience, both considered virtues, both harmful to ourselves. There are also the virtues that deny are nature like chastity, and temperance.

[Maxcady10001]

When a person possesses any of the above virtues, we are the ones who profit from it, not them. They only suffer. We promote the suffering of others, for our benefit. We say "yes, you should sacrifice yourself." When we would do no such thing. "You should work hard, there's honor in that." We say such things, but why should anyone work a job that brings them no pleasure? We are only telling them it's good you should sacrifice yourself for me.

[JamesOfSeattle]

Perhaps virtues are good for the group. If all the members of a group are virtuous, then no members are receiving less benefit than others. While an individual loses the benefits of his own virtuousness, he gains the benefits of other's virtuousness. Virtuous groups tend to out-compete non-virtuous groups.

[Maxcady10001]

That is a good point, on virtuousness and group behavior. However, it is impossible for all members of a group to be virtuous, or the group would surely perish. All members cannot possess a virtue. Even considering all members possess a different virtue, each member is behaving in a way that is self sacrificing. And, a group must have some members that are selfish or greedy, or egotistic, in order to prosper. A group cannot consist of only the unambitious. I know you did not say they did, I am only pointing out that a group may have virtuous members, but those members are acting against their own interest. And, such behavior is always encouraged by the group, even though it is encouraging suffering. There should just be more recognition of virtues as the act of self sacrifice and suffering. And, any individual who would succeed, cannot be virtuous.

[LuckyR]

I already gave you the hard working or the obedient man. Obedience is usually deemed a virtue. Courage, is another example. The man who risks his life to save others, is deemed virtuous. Of course his behavior would be praised, everything that is self sacrificing is praised. Courage and obedience, both considered virtues, both harmful to ourselves. There are also the virtues that deny are nature like chastity, and temperance.

Sorry for the two word post. What I meant was: which traits do you consider to be virtues or virtuous?

I asked because the OP mentioned hard work. There are plenty of financially successful folks who worked hard to afford their Ferraris. Therefore virtuousness leads to quarter million dollar Italian sports cars? Sign me up!

[Maxcady10001]

Fair enough on your point about hard work. The way I used it can easily be confused with drive. Justice, courage, obedience, and temperance are typical virtues.

[Steve3007]

An example is the hard working man. We praise those who slave away in the name of an "honest day's work," because they are sacrificing themselves for us.

Surely we praise him not because he is sacrificing himself for us but because (in a society with a welfare system) he is not requiring us to sacrifice ourselves for him?

[Maxcady10001]

Do you honestly feel burdened by those that don't work? Do you feel as though your tax dollars are carrying them, and are the only reason they live? Taxes are not optional, where our money goes we have no control over, so what does it matter if the government supports them? I'm sure the government does alot with tax dollars that would not be approved of by the people.

[JamesOfSeattle]

However, it is impossible for all members of a group to be virtuous

What? Why?

, or the group would surely perish.

"Surely" is one of the words Dan Dennett tells you to watch out for. Again, why?

All members cannot possess a virtue.

Um, why not?

a group must have some members that are selfish or greedy, or egotistic, in order to prosper.

I think you left out a "surely". Again, why?

I am only pointing out that a group may have virtuous members, but those members are acting against their own interest. And, such behavior is always encouraged by the group, even though it is encouraging suffering. There should just be more recognition of virtues as the act of self sacrifice and suffering.

We don't focus on the suffering because that is NOT what is being encouraged. Benefit to the group is being encouraged.

And, any individual who would succeed, cannot be virtuous

You keep saying this, but give no reasons. Looking forward to the reasons.

*

[Maxcady10001]

Why does Dan Dennett say watch out for the word surely? Is the reason as incoherent as his idea of compatibalism? You left out the part where I said all members cannot be self sacrificing, which is a key point. WhY do groups form? Because they have a common goal, and how can they achieve this goal if each member behaves in a self sacrificing manner. Take a group of three. One member is courageous, one is obedient, and the other is justice driven. This is a group that will not succeed, because they are all virtuous. They will not succeed because they cannot be virtuous and possess attributes such as ambition, sefishness, egoism, or greed. I concede a group must have a sacrificial or virtuous member, but to achieve a goal the group must be diverse in nature. The biggest drivers of group sucess will conflict with a completely virtuous groups nature. Consider the world's greatest empires, the Romans, Khans, Egyptians, Americans, British. Would they be empires if they were all virtuous? A resounding no. It works the same for smaller groups, all members cannot be virtuous, or nothing will be achieved, there must be a driver, and no self sacrificing nature can play that part.

[Ecurb]

The premise that virtue inevitably involves suffering is silly. Anyone who has children knows that loving them and caring for them is one of the great joys of life. It is also virtuous. Virtue promotes joy, not misery.

[Maxcady10001]

The examples i've given clearly harm the individual. Virtues of obedience and courage promote self sacrifice, where is the joy in self sacrifice?

[Eduk]

For me the key part to this discussion is the definition of virtuous.
For example you label obedience as a virtue. But this is a Christian definition of virtue and not a good definition of virtue.
It is no wonder that you cannot resolve the paradox when you cannot properly define virtue.