Virtues and the individual

[Albert Tatlock]

Lol..

[Maxcady10001]

I don't know if the experiment is the right one to use then, because the reason for introducing the grenade is to test virtuosity.
How else would you test it, if you don't introduce some real time test for virtuosity? You have only assigned labels of virtuous and non virtuous, they have to be tested for the trait, and then the value of having the trait must be weighed against not having it. That's why my example was better, because there was a test for virtuosity. Even your previous example was better because the value of virtuosity was being tested. Now you are only organizing groups and not testing anything. Must devise new experiment.

[Eduk]

Ok...

[Eduk]

Possibly obvious. But in the above experiment it doesn't matter what numbers you put in there are less virtuous people each iteration. Thus mankind is doomed.
Something of interest to play about with would be geography. As in not fully randomising the group's. You could randomise but within a range.
I might do that if I get time. It is possible pockets of virtuosity would appear which would then spread.

[Maxcady10001]

You mentioned how easy it would be to code for your experiment, have you actually done so? From the above post, it seems you have. I commend you for the effort you've put into this, if you have.

[Eduk]

yeah, it's very simple in python. I'm not a coder but I've done a reasonable amount of scripting, took me ten minutes or so. But I haven't really demonstrated anything that isn't kind of logically obvious.
I mean in real life children stay with parents (for a time). Communities stay together at least until they hit a certain size. People are naturally tribal. Perhaps people are tribal for this very reason. They 'wish' to sustain the number of virtuous people.
If I get time I might add some geographical considerations to the test.

[SimpleGuy]

Eduk
I never said you said the world was perfectly just, I was only surprised you thought it could be described as somewhat just. And, I already conceded some members in a group must behave virtuously, only that it was to their detriment. As I explained in the response to JamesofSeattle, all members of a group cannot be virtuous, because virtue conflicts with the characteristics that drive the group, e.g, ambition.
SimpleGuy
Which system do you prefer, one where virtuous behavior that turns people into mere functions for the rest of society is encouraged, or one of suppression where all behavior is forced?

Any system,even the most democratic one, as good as it may be will turn into self-cannibalism. As a simple matter of fact Nietzsche simply denied the existence of all values and called this philosophical streaming nihilism. As a matter of fact for you and for me , the existence of entropy will turn any cooperative behaviour sooner or later into concurrence if not anything worse. Could you imagine a system of canned people always be cooperative ? I couldn't and out of the result of justified violence against people who disturb this peace suppression is born. So from it's beginning virtues were the basis for argumentations of suppression. Just think of adam and eve. In the fist Book of moses 3, God said:

He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You1 shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, v‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4wBut the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,2 she took of its fruit xand ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, yand he ate. 7zThen the eyes of both were opened, aand they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths

So insight and anything virtous with it turned into evil.

[SimpleGuy]

So you see, god threw out the first humans out of the garden eden, because they wanted to from the tree of insight. And later on punished them with hard work and for women with the pains of pregnancy. So the virtues of this religion simply resulted in the despising of insight and knowledge, due to the fact that this was leading to sin. And this allegory , represents that every good ansatz is somehow destroyed , even if it's most virtous, from humans who tend to transgress rules.

[SimpleGuy]

Just think about, that christians, still believe in the ten laws of god, known as the ten commandments, directly given from nobody else but god:

And God spoke all these words:

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

13 “You shall not murder.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”

So these were good virtues , given by god. But the eating of the tree of insight and knowledge was in the previous setting no good deed. This is a perfect example that virtues can turn against you.

[Maxcady10001]

Now I am a bit confused. Are you saying insight and knowledge are bad virtues that can work against you, or other virtues, such as the ones the ten commandments demand, are against insight and knowledge and try to prevent insight and knowledge?
I believe you are saying other virtues, such as the ones the ten commandments require, work against insight and knowledge, which is something I would agree with, but is that what you mean?
It's funny you should bring up Nietzsche I got the idea for this topic from reading this passage:
"Thus what is really praised when virtues are praised is, first their instrumental nature and, secondly, the instinct in every virtue that refuses to be held in check by the overall advantage for the individual himself--in sum, the unreason in virtue that leads the individual to allow himself to be transformed into a mere function of the whole. The praise of virtue is the praise of something that is privately harmful-- the praise of instincts that deprive a human being of his noblest selfishness and the strength for the highest autonomy."
(The Gay Science, pg.93)

[SimpleGuy]

The problem is the most supportive point of view for virtues, comes always from the side of religion. Virtues can be praised, but every dictatorship does this too !! Nietzsche simple denied the existence of virtues, due to the fact that the definition always comes from "feeble" religions. Whatever feeble may be. The argument for me is, that the biggest virtue , is the aquirement of wisdom, knowledge and intellectual skill but exactly this was the primeval sin, from the tree of insight and knowlede nobody shall eat unlest you die. The virtues , that most people think , are virtues are just defined by society. Like it is commonly known , that this persion is diligent (fleissig). But if you look at his team, other people are doing in fact his job, he isn't all the time engaged in working. So the virtue diligency is somehow , perverted by an outside perspective and nothing objective. So most of the times if one talks about virtues, they are simply attached by sketchy observations and claims of other people. The true objectiveness of the theme lacks any realism.

[Maxcady10001]

I understand your point now. And I have another question for you. Do what you call virtues of wisdom, knowledge, and intellectual skill, ever act against the definition of a virtue, which is behavior showing high moral standards? If these things act against the definition of a virtue, can they be called virtues? I ask this because wisdom, knowledge and intellectual skill do not always equal moral behavior. Also it is not clear whether you agree with Nietzsche and deny the existence of virtues and morals, or you just believe the meaning of virtues have been perverted by society.

[Eduk]

in sum, the unreason in virtue that leads the individual to allow himself to be transformed into a mere function of the whole

But when I look about myself I see a computer, central heating, plumbing, a fridge (full of food), cheap clothing, TV, books, cars, etc etc etc. I didn't have to fight off wolves this morning. Or spend two hours going to the well to drink dirty water. My teeth are still original and I'm the ripe old age of 38. I mean perhaps I do have to enter the social contract to not murder my neighbour and take his female and male servants, perhaps I am doing myself a disservice.
To be honest the whole argument strikes me as being very similar to the Brexit argument about sovereignty. We are a sovereign country, we decided to enter an agreement where we agreed about certain rules, we get stuff out of that agreement. Now it's absolutely reasonable to say you don't like the agreement and you want out, which is exactly what people in the UK decided. If we weren't sovereign we wouldn't be able to leave (oh the irony).
Likewise I can decide not to work together in groups for the betterment of all. I can go live in Siberia on my own if I wish, I'll die but I could do it.

[Eduk]

Also it is not clear whether you agree with Nietzsche and deny the existence of virtues and morals, or you just believe the meaning of virtues have been perverted by society.

Good question. I can see the argument for the non existence of virtue and morality. Personally I don't agree with it but am forced to concede it is a difficult thing to 'prove'. Also clearly virtues are perverted by society, that's obvious.

[Maxcady10001]

I guess I could never say whether society would have reached this point if people hadn't been reduced to functions. But I already conceded some people needed to sacrifice themselves and take the virtuous route.