Virtues and the individual

[Maxcady10001]

You must mean out of selfishness, you would wish others were virtuous, so you could live. But virtuous people die out in your example, because they always sacrifice themselves and never breed, so the trait for being virtuous is lost and bred out of these people. So eventually more and more people would die in your experiment until no one was left. But it works out that way because you have given these participants the only goal of being blown up.

[Albert Tatlock]

Let us imagine a simply thought experiment. There is a group of people in a room and a grenade is thrown in. All die unless one person throws themselves on the grenade.

What if all the people in the room happened to be equally virtuous and all simultaneously attempted to throw themselves onto the grenade? What do you imagine would be the outcome of the inevitable chaos?

In reality, of course, quite the opposite would occur as I think you are being unrealistically optimistic if you think there would always be at least one person willing to jump on the grenade.

No offence, Eduk, but I don't think there has been much thought put into your thought experiment.

[Eduk]

Albert you cannot offend me unless you say something accurate and pertinent.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert you cannot offend me unless you say something accurate and pertinent.

I bet I could but if you're going to make it hard work I probably won't bother.

[Steve3007]

Eduk:

Some questions about your thought experiment:

Does each generation of each group get a new room with a new grenade?

Do virtuous people always throw themselves on the grenade and non-virtuous people always not?

Do they breed before, after or during the grenade unpleasantness? (Or all three?)

If a virtuous person breeds with a non-virtuous person is the resulting offspring 50% virtuous? Or does it mean there's a 50% chance that he/she is completely virtuous?

If we can resolve these questions, it would be interesting to run the numbers. Clearly groups with no virtuouses would go extinct. But I wonder if groups with all virtuouses would do just as well as those with only one? I guess it would depend on exactly how the throwing yourself on a grenade thing works. If they all run to throw themselves on the grenade, does only the fastest one die? If so, there might be selective pressure for slowness. You might end up with a group of people who are all virtuous but whose running speed has become synchronized with the fuse time of the grenade. Interesting.

[Maxcady10001]

How is this example being setiously considered, but mine was called an oversimplification, especially since my example proved virtuous people are less likely to survive than non virtuous people, and was more coherent. My previous ex: Your life is put against the lives of four others, if you are virtuous, you would die and sacrifice youeself for the four others. If you are not virtuous, you would live and the other four would die.

[Albert Tatlock]

Eduk:
Does each generation of each group get a new room with a new grenade?

I imagine that would be necessary as the remains of the previous group could be quite off putting to the new group and could well deter them from proceeding with the experiment. As for the grenade, they tend not to be reusable.

Do virtuous people always throw themselves on the grenade and non-virtuous people always not?

I wouldn't think it just a matter of virtue, lack of intelligence has undoubtedly a role to play in all this.

Do they breed before, after or during the grenade unpleasantness? (Or all three?)

It would have to be before, grenades are a very effective form of contraception.

You might end up with a group of people who are all virtuous but whose running speed has become synchronized with the fuse time of the grenade.

I think natural selection would tend to favour those that ran away from, rather than towards the grenade.

[Steve3007]

Sorry Max. For my part, it wasn't because your example has less merit. It's just because I was too lazy to read back that far.

Your example is indeed coherent and it quite obviously results in the virtuous person dying. But it doesn't seem to consider anything about inheritance. Do these four people reproduce at all? If they do, do they do it before or after (or during) this act of self-sacrifice?

[Steve3007]

Albert:

I had a good laugh at your first three reply lines. As for this one:

I think natural selection would tend to favour those that ran away from, rather than towards the grenade.

Yes, but i think it's a condition of the experiment that in that scenario they'd all die whilst scrambling against the walls of the room or attempting to hide behind each other. I suppose Eduk's point was to suggest that groups in which at least somebody, by chance, doesn't do that and "takes one for the team" would survive, so virtuousness/stupidity (depending on your point of view) would survive by group-selection. As you've pointed out, reproducing after being blown apart by a grenade has quite severe problems, so the virtuous/stupid member of the group would survive long enough to reproduce. But he/she would reproduce with a non-virtuous/sensible person. So in the next generation there's a 50% chance of the group going extinct. And so on.

So perhaps eventually virtuousness would be bred out and all the groups would simply go extinct.

[Steve3007]

Thinking about it: I think the only groups that would survive indefinitely would be those consisting entirely of virtuous people. If there was even one non-virtuous person then eventually, by chance, a generation would be born consisting of all non-virtuous people and the group would go extinct.

[Maxcady10001]

Steve3007
That was the conclusion I came to in my first response to Eduks problem.
I don't have any idea as to incorporating reproduction in a way that would make sense.I was just trying to demonstrate a non virtuous person's advantage. However, I would say that a person who is not virtuous is more likely to reproduce, and reproduce more frequently than someone who is virtuous. Consider the bear that eats their cubs to survive, and reproduce later. Of course if a mother were to eat her children she would not be considered virtuous but she would live to reproduce again.
Albert Tatlock
Outside of Eduks example would you say virtuousity and intelligence are negatively correlated?

[Albert Tatlock]

Yes, but i think it's a condition of the experiment that in that scenario they'd all die whilst scrambling against the walls of the room or attempting to hide behind each other. I suppose Eduk's point was to suggest that groups in which at least somebody, by chance, doesn't do that and "takes one for the team" would survive, so virtuousness/stupidity (depending on your point of view) would survive by group-selection. As you've pointed out, reproducing after being blown apart by a grenade has quite severe problems, so the virtuous/stupid member of the group would survive long enough to reproduce. But he/she would reproduce with a non-virtuous/sensible person. So in the next generation there's a 50% chance of the group going extinct. And so on.

I'm afraid the level of thought you are prepared to devote to this thought experiment leaves me not only puzzled but also at a disadvantage when it comes to analysing what the outcome would be, as I am not prepared to pay anywhere near as much attention to it's detail. This being the case, I'm willing to accept that your understanding of all its implications is superior to mine.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert Tatlock
Outside of Eduks example would you say virtuousity and intelligence are negatively correlated?

Not at all. In fact, I, myself, am an example of virtuousness and intelligence successfully coexisting.

[Maxcady10001]

What do you think of the exam0les I gave of the non virtuous surviving over the virtuous?

[LuckyR]

Of course, virtuousness also has degrees. Obeying traffic signals makes you get to your destination a bit slower, but most agree they don't want to drive in a free for all road system. Similarly, waiting your turn in the check out line slows you down but helps you avoid a punch in the noee, or at least social ostracism