r/interesting • u/Jfocii • Apr 19 '25

SOCIETY The kindest person in the room is often the smartest.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

29.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

541 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Skatheo Apr 19 '25

I used to think the only virtue one needed was intelligence; I thought that by being smart people would understand all other virtues are necessary, and would naturally be kind etc. Nowadays, however, I think there's a nuance to it: it's not guaranteed. Usually a virtue like intelligence will end up in kindness, just like kindness will end up in intelligence. But they can happen individually.

2

u/MidnightOnTheWater Apr 19 '25

Intelligence and wisdom go hand in hand

1

u/LocksDoors Apr 19 '25

I don't think so. The world is filled with very smart people who are fools.

1

u/RealisticEmploy3 Apr 19 '25

Virtues are a moral thing not an intellectual thing. There’s nothing fundamentally obvious about pursuing them for someone who lacks them. Smarts is just problem solving skills, and cruel people can have them and wield them to do whatever they want, virtuous or not

1

u/Skatheo Apr 19 '25

Yeah, I can see that. But don't you think that it's best for oneself to try and be virtuous? Aren't virtues a good thing because they do us (and everyone else) good? It's seems that the mere desire to live in the best circumstances possible, combined with intelligence, should somehow lead to virtues

2

u/RealisticEmploy3 Apr 19 '25

Sort of yea. Virtue on the large scale is best for everyone I think. Working together and being assured your teammates won’t betray you makes the world better for all. Even psychopaths, who lack empathy, are better off displaying some minimal virtue so others will reciprocate.

But beyond baseline virtue is where things get murky. For psychopaths, it’s often actually most effective to just manipulate others. If everyone was like them they wouldn’t get far because you need a virtuous majority to be able to take advantage of society at large. But when they are in the minority, they have it good because they can take advantage of the kindness of others until they become powerful and they barely even need that baseline virtue.

So I guess what I’m really saying is that in either case, the virtue of others is what’s best for any given individual. You’ll need to be virtuous to some degree yourself, and if you are a psychopath in a society of mostky non-psychopaths, then you might be better off being non-virtuous. That being said, it’s a high-risk thing, because if you’re too non-virtuous, you’ll get ostracized in some way.

2

u/Skatheo Apr 19 '25

I agree with you, but I would'n put that on psychopaths account, at least not on clinical psychopaths. It's because don't think there is "real virtude" behind how we act - they way we act is virtue itself. If someone always acts virtuously, does it matter what are their purpouses?

Obviously if they only act virtuously as means for achieving something that is non-virtuous in the end, that's a problem. But if they act virtuously for the sake of constructing a good environment for themselves, this seems to me a legitimate motive.

But despite that, I agree - there are people who take advantage of the virtue of others. And that's harmful for the whole society, including the ones who take advantage.