I would reflect firstly on why I needed to lead such a voyage in the first place? — Benj96

If you were in that position, you would already know the answer. A quick review won't hurt, but you'd have to use the information available to make decisions.

I would also assess if this earth like planet is home to an advanced sentient being with culture and society or just a primordial soup of simple amoebas and bacteria. — Benj96

Smart procedure: find out what you're dealing with. Maybe check for bacteria or gases that are potentially harmful to your own party. You know how Star Trek away teams just beam down, willy-nilly, trusting that the environment is safe? Don't do that: you won't always land in California.

If the planet is not yet with life but has the conditions necessary, I and my team would set down, cast the materials in place and accelerate the fruition of the first lifeforms then leave it to grow, perhaps to return in the future to observe what has come of it. — Benj96

Now, that sounds divine!

Do the math. — Agent Smith

44
What's next?

We went from education for good moral judgment — Athena

No, however many times to repeat the claim, you didn't. You went from a hodge-podge of state, municipal, private, religious and trades education to something more nearly coherent. Education was always aimed at producing whatever kind of work-force the economy required.

You do not have to agree with me, but throwing out information because it is old is a problem. — Athena

Keeping debunked and refuted data past their expiration date is also a problem.

For sure if education had not changed in 1958, we would not be where we are today. — Athena

Also if education had not changed in 1938, 1910, 1895, 1803, 1662, 1412, 976 and 535 BCE. Also, if there had not been two world wars, a Bolshevik revolution, a US civil war, the Seven Years' war, the war of the roses, the French Revolution, the Crusades and the Peloponnesian War... That's right; everything past produces the present. Not one event; all events.

The internet is the result of the 1958 National Defense Education Act and this applies directly to the subject of this thread. — Vera Mont

No, it didn't. The internet started before any of the students affected by that change could possibly have contributed to developing telecommunications. https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml No, it isn't. Automation is a present fact, not a past hypothetical proposition.

To me the issue of whether you believe in an after life makes a big difference. — Andrew4Handel

To what? That's the central issue. People with different world-views may still be able to agree on a short-term goal. Whether the other person thinks you'll go to heaven or not, you may still both understand the need to get the hay in or a roof on the house before it rains.

There are proximate beliefs: I need food, and ultimate beliefs: I need salvation. The latter need not impede co-operation on the former.

The dead body question is not one of beliefs, but of duplicity. If the car owner who had (we don't actually know this from the example as given) had, in fact murdered someone and is concealing the crime, he obviously doesn't believe that he had a right to do. If it were a question of his belief, he wouldn't keep it a secret; he could simply ask someone who shares his belief to to help him move the body to wherever it's supposed to be.
The bystander doesn't know anything about the driver's belief when he offers to help: he simply sees a vehicle blocking the road. The driver doesn't know whether the bystander approves of the murder (nor do we; not even the identity of the victim). So, their short-term goals coincide: get the car moving. To that end, they can put off any discussion of world-views or ideology.

For the most part, the feds don't want to touch drugs in my opinion. Let them have cake, no? — Shawn

So much for Nixon's War on Drugs. Good. It was a sneaky, awful, hideously expensive political idea that resulted in huge injustices.

I would like to make an important point here, that this (as of recent) liberalization of drug policies has been driven from grassroot movements in America. I believe this trend will continue unabated. Do you believe so also? — Shawn

It's just another shift in the choice of self-medication/escapism/thrill-seeking. Prohibition didn't stop the use of alcohol; criminalization didn't stop the use of other mood-altering chemicals.

Some Americans have always had access to luxuries in food, drink, smoke, sexual pleasures and leisure time activities. The less privileged have always partaken of whatever kind of indulgence was available to them. I don't see a quantitative change in self-indulgent behaviour, only in the venues whereby escape mechanisms are made available.

My chickens are conscious, but they don't say much. — Banno

I've known a lot of chickens, and they were never silent. Even when they have no flock to communicate with, chickens talk to themselves.

here you go again making a statement about something you know nothing about — Athena

And your source of information for my absolute abysmal ignorance - besides my failure to agree with you is....?

The internet is the result of the 1958 National Defense Education Act and this applies directly to the subject of this thread. — Athena

Okay. So all you need to fix the problems created by automation since the 1960's is to hop in your time machine and reset the US education system to 1957.

I think you are just a human who is trying to con us into thinking you are a god! — universeness

Are we participating in the same thought-experiment, or have you advanced to another level?

So perhaps it's time to tell them why you had a need to create them. — universeness

I didn't. I'd have taken the time to make a better design. That impatient, temperamental Jehova keeps leaving messes all over the universe for other gods to clean up. Frankly, we're growing tired of it. Some members of the Council are ready to send Him back to the PreBang.

A god cannot be inaccurate! — universeness

Sez what negligible protozoan?

Make up your omniscient mind god Vera, Despot or Benevolent Dictator, which is it? — universeness

Choose your own words and definitions. I'll forgive any all jibber-jabber. As to faith... one of your more idiotic concepts. Say what you will about ol' J (He might not forgive, though), He blew some quite serviceable grey fluff into your heads, yet so many of you refuse to exercise it.

Is this your way of admitting you are not an omnigod and are in fact fallible? — universeness

No. Is this your way of misrepresenting or misinterpreting? Human language is limited, but it can be used to communicate ideas.

Do you have a gender, god Vera? — universeness

Whatever for?

C'mon god Vera Mont explain your intent! — universeness

All in good time.

So, you have decided to ignore your creation due to disappointment with their performance so far. — universeness

No, on the topic of that same paragraph, I decided to ignore, rather than punish,
their gross transgression of etiquette in calling me narcissistic. Maybe they just don't know any better.

You still have to tell me more about your contradictory feelings of despotism, leniency and forgiveness.

There is nothing contradictory about being a benevolent dictator. It's what all polities secretly or openly yearn for. Whenever they raise up a tyrant, or allow one to rise on their power, they're hoping that this time, this one, will keep his promises to protect them and make the right decisions for them, provide for them and make them great again. It's rarely happened, but they keep the faith.
Surely, seeing their faces distorted with rage, hate, pain and fear, lusting, mistrusting, longing, despairing, striving, starving; their pathetic little human faces turned to heaven, surely an omnipotent entity can afford them mercy.

Without the language parts of our brains are we even conscious? — TiredThinker

Try to imagine an unconscious person inventing language.
That's too simplistic an approach, I know. But language - all sorts, even the earliest growls and trills - were produced as a form of communication between members of a species. If they had not been conscious of their own intentions and desires, of a second creature's presence and of a need to convey the one to the other, there wouldn't be any point in vocalization, from which all language evolved. (All language: signs, musical notation, numbers, alphabets all arise from oral communication.)

Schools are social institutions filled with peers and they are essential to transmitting culture. — Athena

What, you mean all the other kids who live in the same kind of house, eat the same food, play in the same park, watch the same entertainments, root for the same teams, are influenced by parents in the same neighbourhood and the same social media and the same advertising? Yes, they do transmit culture, and keep it compartmentalized.

If you want to discuss education, — Athena

Not all of education is relevant to the current topic. Not even Eisenhower is relevant to the topic - too far outdated.

You made it a choice to ignore information — Athena

I made it a choice to ignore one claim I considered inaccurate.

I most definitely see women, people of color, and people who fit differently in the gender spectrum have a very different reality today than in the past and we wouldn't be here without the education to get here. — Athena

Post 1958 education. So, what's your problem with it again? Now, I am well and truly confused about your position.

I will overlook that you inferred I am not being honest, — Athena

I not only inferred, but very clearly discerned, that you were very selective in you references to both Greek and American culture; highlighting some small parts, while obfuscating or ignoring big swatches of what don't fit with that view. By "look honestly" I mean at the whole fabric, dropped stitches, stains and all.

I think a new thread might be in order. — Athena

Possibly. We've gone quite a long way off topic. You might have access to streaming this program (esp. episode 3 The Greek Thing) for a concise overview.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1777715/ A

Our nation has had culture wars from the beginning and education was used by opposing sides to manifest opposing cultures. — Athena

So... "the philosophy behind American education" was always secondary to political and economic agendas? Huh.

But we could also point out Athens was not perfect and had slavery and sexism and economic disparity. — Athena

Coulda sworn I've done that very thing!

To its creation and from it's creation or else it's creation has no value to its creator and this would make the creator an idiot under any human rational judgement I can conceive of. — universeness

So? Have you heard how they talk about one another's gods? Those are my ancestors they're maligning. Wash out their mouths with bleach, consign them to some kind of hell of their own imagining, or ignore them? Tough choice... Naw! easy choice. I'm a very lenient and forgiving despot: ignore them.

Your area being all things right? As all things are by default a part of your godly self. — Benj96

If I'm god, you don't get to set my parameters or my default. I am that I am and that's all that Iyam

If you enforce them what is to be said if free will? — Benj96

Whatever they want to say about it. They always jabber about stuff they don't understand; it's harmless, keeps their mouths occupied when not eating.

Would they not all be slaves to your every command, unable to choose anything other than what is morally prudent by your means? — Benj96

That's the only command I gave them. They're already subject to physics, chemistry and biology - that doesn't leave a whole lot of room for free will. What they've had, they've most abused.

Do you think humanity would be inspired by your great works or left feeling controlled and manipulated towards what is best? — Benj96

Ask me again in 1500 years.

hat's why a god would not create us because it would be an admission of its own narcissism. — universeness

To whom is a creator-god answerable? From whom would such an entity fear derision?

Why would you do any of that? — universeness

To make up for the last god. Having experienced mortality in my own permeable skin, rather than through an intermediary, like the last guy, I have learned sympathy as well as antipathy for the mortals.

How would you define your godly morality? — Benj96

Do no avoidable harm. Minimize suffering, maximize happiness for every sentient being in your area of influence.

Would you spread your truth? If so who would you tell and why? — Benj96

Absolutely. Everyone. Beam the new rules directly into their brains.

What say you of free will and determinism? — Benj96

Anyone can exercise the will they have, however free or constrained they believe it to be, as long as they do no avoidable harm.

In essence, what sort of god would you define yourself as? — Benj96

Despotic.

I would place all the humans under a kind of house arrest: confine them to their cities and towns, amalgamating scattered villages into the nearest market town, with a reasonable green belt around each. They would become independent political units, with a dome (yes, dome, but an impregnable one) for protection from the elements, and provide them with the technology for food production, communication and medical science, but remove all the implements of destruction and pollution from their control. In effect, remove the planet from their control. They couldn't break out, but I'd lift out one or a group from time to time, as a reward for particularly good behaviour, and take them for a hiking vacation in the human-free landscape.
(Don't worry about the cattle and domestic fowl; I'd liberate them and help them organize into the herds and flocks they were supposed to form on their own. By the time enough predators return be a real danger to them, they, too, will have reverted to their wild habits. guess I'd better calm down the climate-change disrupted weather for their sake; stop those wildfires and floods.)

Once I'd got the system working to my satisfaction, I'd put a timer on it; domes start dissolving in 1000 earth years, starting with the smallest, and gradually disappearing until, by 3150, even Tokyo and Delhi are domeless. The air should be pretty good by then.

By astutely contributing to this thread you have ironically ended it. — hypericin

I wish!

Right, the outcome was unintentional then. That would be an example of situational irony as given earlier in a definition gleaned from somewhere on the net. — Janus

The outcomes of all those scenarios were unintentional; only one was ironic. The one that jumped up and bit you in the ass.

So, you're saying that irony (the unintended outcome) is only ever unintentional, or what? — Janus

You set a trap for a rat. A squirrel falls into it. Unintended and not the least bit ironic.
You set a trap for your rival. He doesn't fall into it, but a complete stranger does. Bad luck for him, good luck for your rival, failure for you, but no irony.
The operative word there was "because". Hoist with your own petard.
("The phrase's meaning is that a bomb-maker is blown ("hoist") off the ground by his own bomb (a "petard" is a small explosive device), and indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice.")
You set a trap for your rival. He walks past it, totally unaware. You wonder how that could have happened. You go see why the trap didn't go off. It goes off and catches you.
What happened to you happened only because of what you intended to happen to the other person.


.

In Christian circles this used to be called hypocrisy and I wonder if hypocrisy, when viewed from a particular perspective, is just irony as praxis. — Tom Storm

No, it's just [plain hypocrisy. And dishonesty.

Perhaps "it's only ironic when the outcome is opposite to the apparent intention because of the real intention" ? — Janus

No, that's just duplicity. SOP for PR, business and some politicians - nothing that needs a special category. .

As I noted in my post, the definitions miss something I think is important. — T Clark

Yes, that's what I was on about also. The fact that the outcome is different from, or even opposite to, the intent is merely unfortunate, and sometimes comical to the onlooker. It's only ironic when the outcome is opposite to the intention because of the intention.

I don't quite feel any of those definitions are sufficient.

The disparity of intention and result; when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect. — T Clark

That happens all the time and is not remarkable. They all seem to be missing a reflexive element that differentiates ironic disparity from any old mundane “The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley.”

I mentioned in another thread the Star Trek Voyager story line of Borg drones having a virtual space in which they were their pre-assimilation individual selves. The irony is: they could create this illusion of separate identities only through the collective consciousness of the hive mind which they were escaping.

See what I mean? In a more immediate situation that might be familiar to many of us: I bought two little magnets for the mailbox lid. I didn't get 'round to fixing it for a while, and in that time I forgot where I put those magnets, thinking: I'll put them in a place I'm sure to remember when I need them.
Or, as my neighbour often says: "I put it in a safe place. I'll never see it again!"

I don't know enough about Pink Floyd to know what you mean. — Athena

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0bi7OfaKMY

You are also speaking of people's private lives, not public education. — Athena

In the home is where early imprinting, domestication, internalization of social roles, and world-view formation take place. All in the first 3-5 years. By the time children enter school, their attitudes and self-image are established.

If you are intentionally ignoring all the philosophies behind our education and the foundation of democracy, there is no point in continuing this discussion because your reasoning is lacking too much information. — Athena

"Behind" is the operative word. Education varies with the needs of the nation. When Athens was at war, it prized soldiers. When it was at peace (no more than 15-20 years at a time, just like the US), it valued scholars. At all times, it valued its self-image - just like every other city-state and nation-state in the world. At all times, it "believed in" something like democracy, but actually practiced domination, patriarchy, enslavement, and some degree of autocracy.

The industrial northern states didn't have slaves, so they put children and immigrants to work in similar condition to those of slavery. Once they had enough automation not to need so many unskilled hands, they suddenly discovered a 'philosophy' that required children to go to school longer and longer, which kept them out of competition for jobs and raised the literacy level of the clerical workers, engineers and technicians, of which the burgeoning capitalist economy needed more and more.

The North was determined not to let the institution of slavery spread to newly opened territories, so it fought a war, won it, freed the slaves.... and never for another century tried to give those freed Black people the same chance as their white counterparts in anything but name.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Do you really see liberty, equality and justice "for all" in the actual practices of US legislatures, judiciaries and social organizations through the nation's history? If you want to delve into the philosophy on which the United States was founded, do so. But do it honestly. Democracy?

When we intentionally ignore someone, isn't the ignore- ance? — Athena

I ignored some claim, not some-one. Yes. In order to ignore facts in favour of a special, pretty ideal, a certain degree of willful ignorance is required.

That means the consciousness here is limited to a place, the US or a compatible country, and the poster's lifetime. That is a very limited perspective — Athena

It is a limited and clearly articulated tropic. The question wasn't: What would Homer do about automation? it was "what ought we to do?

I think I'm too literal to reframe something so clearly stated in the title.
Can you show me?

technology ain't the guy! — Agent Smith

Again with the cryptics! What guy?

For the moment I'd say we're pretty much in a reallydark spot despite the valiant efforts of many, misguided though they may be. — Agent Smith

I don't know what that means. I understand the words, and agree with the dark spot portion of it, but don't know who is making a valiant, misguided effort to accomplish what. I may have missed a few references along the way.

There seems to be an issue we're not giving the required amount of attention. — Agent Smith

I believe there are several, but the three big ones that concern computer technology are, IMO: Personal privacy, International espionage (which includes intelligence, surveillance, interference and disinformation) and commercial exploitation (which includes undue influence and invasive procedures, as well as replacement of workers with robots without first making alternate arrangement for the displaced people.) Both industry and consumers are forging blythely ahead, without very much consideration of long-term consequences, while government stands timidly by and workers have no recourse.

But then, factor in that nobody seems to be up to the task of serious long-term figuring.

If we can one day create general AI, we would for sure need to reconsider what it is to be human - — Agent Smith

The ethical question there is whether the merging of human and machine is voluntary or forced. The Borg are one example of involuntary mechanization. In fact, in Star trek Voyager, there is a story where some "drones" form a human type virtual colony: in their collective dreams, they are individual again. The irony is a bit heavy-handed, but the story engages one's sympathies.
The issue is also covered, rather more bluntly, in the Doctor Who episodes about cybermen and Daleks.

I count religion as education and I see all beliefs in the gods as religion. It is what Athens defended when they killed Socrates and what Rome defended when it persecuted Christians and later what Christians defended when they destroyed the pagan temples. Mythology is essential to large unites of humans and it is transmitted from generation to generation. That is education. — Athena

In that case, I'm with Pink Floyd.

How do you think nationalism was taught? — Athena

Ipledgealliegiancetotheflagandtotherepublicforwhichitstandsonenationundergodindivisiblewithlibertyandjusticeforall (except the coloureds an wommin an Mexicuns an Jews an commies an them eyeties thadr all gangstas)

Ambition, greed, and paranoia are taught? — Athena

Of course they are. How it works is: from 2-6 years old, you tell a kid that if he's a good little boy and eats all his beef, Santa will bring him nice, expensive presents - and he can hear what his lawyer daddy thinks of the Black janitor whose kid doesn't get such nice presents from Santa. Evidently, Santa, who is a fat old white man, only likes the children of successful people. After age 6, you tell him that success depends on good grades. Get into a good college (all except twelve being not-so-good colleges) and that success is a corner office and a six-figure salary. And all around him, he can see that it's true. Then you tell him that all those people in the parentheses want to take away his nice stuff.

Did you miss the explanation that education comes from philosophy? Maybe we should go back and cover that more carefully? — Athena

I didn't miss it. I ignored it. The 'philosophy' that a nation practices, and on which it bases its daily commercial transactions, political activities, law-enforcement, social organization, housing arrangements, employment practices, health-care delivery and child-raising is not the same philosophy it carves into the lintels of officious buildings and the plinths of statues.

I don't think you're chronology is correct. Christians did not attack anyone until after Constantine legitimaized their religion — Athena

Sure they did. They regularly desecrated Roman temples, destroyed religious symbols and disrupted services. That's what Paul and Luke spent so much time in jail for. No, I'm not interested in rehashing the history of christianity, here or anywhere. You seem to be ambivalent about it - good in one setting, bad in another - while I reject it in every form.

Athens was not an empire. — Athena

That's true. It was a city smaller than Eugene, Oregon, more that a quarter of its population was enslaved. But that's not "The Greeks", is it? Any more than picking a particular period out of the history of Italy is "The Romans", or a Saturday Evening cover is America.

The intent behind torture is always irrational — Cobra

How do you figure it's irrational to want information about the plans and capabilities of one's mortal enemy?

After you check out this link we can discuss why the Greek city-states were not an empire equal to the Roman empire. — Athena

You choose to limit it to the city states, and exclude Alexander? Okay, then you have to restrict the Roman one to the first Republic. https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Republic
No prizes for cherries!

Ever since the civil war, the federal government has become more and more powerful, diminishing the power of sovereign states. — Athena

The red state legislatures would be the first to agree with you. The Republican-packed Supreme Court is second. I'll be among the last.

But I think the glory of Rome is not exactly what the United States set out to manifest. — Athena

What it set out to do, what it has done and what it is doing are not necessarily all of a piece. But it is a fact: done and cannot be undone.

Throughout history, nothing has been more powerful than education. — Athena

Except religion, nationalism, ambition, greed, paranoia and pride. The chiefest among these is greed, most especially greed for territory - more land! their land! and all the black and gold stuff stuff under it! It's all for us.

"If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct." — Athena

Just so. And where do these ideals of education originate? In the nation's self-image and aspiration. The horse goes first; the cart follows.

In Rome, Christians destroyed the pagan temples that were places of learning. That threw the West into the Dark Age, — Athena

No, that got the christians thrown into Roman prisons. Much later, Constantine imposed Christianity - or some Romanized form thereof - onto Europe. That still didn't bring on the dark age. The dissolution of the Roman empire did.

Speaking for myself, machines & humans can be symbiotically integrated (cyborgs) for, well, mutual benefit. — Agent Smith

...Bannakaffalatta? Is that really you?

I say this unfortunate turn is also the result of education for a technological society with unknown values, and intensionally ending the transmission of our culture to our children through our education system. — Athena

No, it's a result of all the history that went before, of the condition of the world today and of the general craziness of our race. Education has a little part in what happens in the big world; it's not pivotal.

This is a conflict between Christians and secular people and a battle for a national future between those who have faith in humans and those who do not. — Athena

A lot of people - millions - who call themselves Christian align with the darkest forces of history, from the persecution and eradication of heretics, through the Crusades and the devastation of the Americas and the wholesale kidnapping and importation of African people as if they were no more than bales of cotton or any other trade goods, to the current farce of Trumpery. There are no christian values. There are good values and bad ones. Any name - any name! - can be put in the service of either.

The Romans spread an empire that fell. — Athena

All past empires fell, were conquered or dissolved. They have a natural life-span, just like mayflies, redwoods and humans.

The Greeks spread a culture that has endured. The Romans spread an empire that fell.

See the bias? The Greeks also had an empire - a big one - that fell. And the Romans also left behind a sizeable cultural legacy. Plus some amazing roads. Why cherry-pick? They were both admirable and abominable.

Socrates' father was a sculptor and Socrates followed his father's profession. — Athena

Says stonemason in that biography, and Socrates definitely joined the army. Served with distinction.

Whatever, I have totally enjoyed looking for more information and coming to new conclusions. — Athena

Good. The fabled Athenians, Pericles' vaunted Athens, engaged in war, international trade, slavery, patriarchy, money-lending, Saturday night pub brawls, political infighting and hypocrisy with as much gusto as every other nation-state on the face of the Earth. So did the fabled young American Republic. When you idealize a shining moment as if it were a sustained condition, you fail to see the grubby century in which it was a moment of importance.

This thread is about how technology changes our lives, and it was political technology that was changing the lives of Athenians. — Athena

Technology, as well as the sequelae of the great depression, as well as the economic push and psychological imprint of WWII and the consequent geopolitical reconfiguration of the world, changed the lives of not only Americans, but just about everyone. And it's kept on changing ever since. And it's not going to be reset to 1957 or 1927 or 1867 or 447BCE.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/socrates

His family apparently had the moderate wealth required to launch Socrates’ career as a hoplite (foot soldier). As an infantryman, Socrates showed great physical endurance and courage, rescuing the future Athenian leader Alcibiades during the siege of Potidaea in 432 B.C. 

He grew up during the golden age of Pericles’ Athens, served with distinction as a soldier, but became best known as a questioner of everything and everyone.

Socrates became the lone opponent of an illegal proposal to try a group of Athens’ top generals for failing to recover their dead from a battle against Sparta (the generals were executed once Socrates’ assembly service ended). Three years later, when a tyrannical Athenian government ordered Socrates to participate in the arrest and execution of Leon of Salamis, he refused—an act of civil disobedience that Martin Luther King Jr. would cite in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

The tyrants were forced from power before they could punish Socrates, but in 399 he was indicted for failing to honor the Athenian gods and for corrupting the young. Although some historians suggest that there may have been political machinations behind the trial, he was condemned on the basis of his thought and teaching.

This also operates at a national level as it does on a global one. People in small, close knit rural communities in any country have a distinctly different upbringing and relationship with one another to those in an urbanised High populous area. — Benj96

There is the population makeup to consider - alongside access to the outside world, income and income disparity, kinds of occupation, conditions of daily life. Big cities now are mostly cosmopolitan: their population doesn't share a common heritage, language, religion, cuisine and mode of dress, as the population of Ottumwa, Iowa or Nagano, Japan are likely to be. That means a big city can't have close-knit communities of people who have grown up and old together, alliances, feuds and running gags that go on for generations: there is too much moving in and out. But they can and often do have room for micro-communities of people with something in common, and of course, ghettos.

It's not only conceivable but common to find a hell dome and heaven dome within two miles of each other.

You appear to have a very closed mind on this subject and I am afraid arguing with you will only make matters worse. — Athena

I have a different perspective, and use - as you have seen - different source material.
Matters won't get worse from argument; they won't get better from refusal to engage; odds are, they won't change at all. I'm open to any of those eventualities.

virtue is found in both social and individual behaviour, — Banno

Found? By whom? How? If the actor "finds" his behaviour acceptable (or necessary) and there is nobody else there to judge him, who is in a position to deem his act unvirtuous? Who has the authority to do so? By what criteria?
Sorry this is the wrong way around; I was erasing a previous remark.

Do you have a specific point or question? — Banno

Yes. I asked it: What do you mean by this:

Virtue has a broader scope than morality. — Banno

In order to be broader than morality, it would have to encompass something more than morality does. Since morality covers the individual's interactions with other individuals, society, other species and the environment, I'm asking what is left for virtue to cover that morality doesn't?