Virtues and the individual

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 9th, 2017, 5:53 pm

Just that all members of a group do not have to be virtuous.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » December 9th, 2017, 6:29 pm

That is obviously true.

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 9th, 2017, 6:35 pm

Then you must have misread my earlier post.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » December 9th, 2017, 7:15 pm

I'm a bit lost.
Either individual people who are virtuous are needed for survival or they are not.
If they are then those virtuous individuals get to exist and existing is of benefit.

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 9th, 2017, 7:25 pm

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I was only confused with your earlier post, when you thought I was saying a group could be virtuous with any virtuous individuals. I was not saying that.

Post by **LuckyR** » December 10th, 2017, 1:26 am

Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑December 9th, 2017, 7:42 am
LuckyR
Your example does not involve being virtuous, although you could argue for love. In the example you have mislabeled high and low value. Hanging out with friends is high value, and sitting upfront is low value. Person would rather hang out with friends than sit upfront alone. The second part, is my point, the virtuous individual may feel happy or fulfilled because they have sacrificed themselves for the whole, and to sacrifice oneself for others is viewed by others as praiseworthy. They don't view it as a sacrifice, because virtuous behavior has been deemed the most celebratory and honorable. However, it still is not in the interest of the individual's survival.

That is exactly my point. Your error is defining survival as high value and personal self satisfaction as low value. Thus you have used the word "sacrifice". However many folks disagree.

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 10th, 2017, 1:48 am

Fair enough, If people consider their survival of low value compared to satisfaction, I can see how this is possible.

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 10th, 2017, 2:14 am

Despite the labels people choose to use, I just wanted acknowledgement of virtuous behavior's detriment to an individual's survival.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » December 10th, 2017, 4:17 am

But didn't we just agree that some people had to be virtuous for anyone to survive? Therefore it is not detrimental.

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 10th, 2017, 4:37 am

It is to the people who are virtuous.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » December 10th, 2017, 4:43 am

No. They get to exist. It might feel, to you, that they are pulling the short straw of life. But at least they get to pull a straw in the first place.

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 10th, 2017, 4:48 am

Yes, they get to exist, but the chances of their survival are less, and the extent to which they can succeed is less.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » December 10th, 2017, 5:20 am

Chance of survival is zero without virtuous people. Ability to succeed is zero without virtuous people. You can argue, though I don't agree, that their chance of survival is relatively less than the non virtuous. But any number is higher than zero.

Maxcady10001 · Post by **Maxcady10001** » December 10th, 2017, 6:21 am

Yes, and the number associated with virtuous people will be lower when compared with non virtuous people.

Eduk · Post by **Eduk** » December 10th, 2017, 7:53 am

I think I have possibly worked out why there is a need to procreate between two individuals. Thank you for forcing me to think it through.

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.

Imagine a large group of people. Imagine all the people are randomised into groups. Imagine there is a percentage chance of being virtuous or non virtuous.

Imagine the experiment is repeated with each generation. Imagine people breed at random and virtuosity is inheritable in a straight forward manner.

Now obviously to breed you must have been in a group with at least one (not including yourself) virtuous person. Obviously the more virtuous people in general the more chance of survival in general. But equally obviously if you could guarantee one virtuous person you would have a 100% chance to breed if you were not virtuous.

Now I haven't run the numbers. Don't have time right now. But my guess is virtuosity is favoured (survival wise) over non virtuosity. The ideal would be for all to be virtuous as this would lead to the highest percentage chance for any one individual to survive.

I mean if you weren't virtuous then out of selfishness you should wish that you were.