Ship of Fools: Intelligence and Morality

Thread: Intelligence and Morality Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030215

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

I am presently reading a biography of the eminent philosopher of science, Karl Popper.

In 1937 he finished up lecturing in New Zealand after fleeing anti-Semitism in the rich cultural and intellectual milieu of Vienna, where he had been born.

He discovered in New Zealand that university students were not as well educated as Viennese gymnasium (ie secondary school) students.

And yet despite (or because of?) their country's cultural and intellectual brilliance, most Austrians (contra the Sound Of Music legend) welcomed the 1938 Anschluss and subsequent Nazification and incorporation into Germany's armed forces, while dull, philistine New Zealand fought staunchly on the anti-fascist side in the twentieth century's single most significant clash of good and evil.

There is no theoretical reason why, or empirical evidence that, intelligent and well-educated people will be more moral than their opposites, and yet I, and I suspect most people, at least unconsciously think that there is.

And much of our faith in education seems to be based on a belief that it will produce graduates who are not just more knowledgeable and competent, but more ethical as well.

Is there any basis for these assumptions?

[ 05. September 2016, 05:33: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Is there any basis in the example you cite for tying intelligence and morality? What exactly does this "cultural and intellectual brilliance" of Australia consist of? How many people in the society were responsible for making the decision to support the Anschluss? You compare New Zealanders' education to that of Austrians, but do not compare them to Australians, except for the rather grandiose and meaningless "cultural and intellectual brilliance." How many people in New Zealand were responsible for making the decision to fight against Germany? Didn't Australia eventually come around, or did they side with Germany during the entire war?

Your example is meaningless. It doesn't show anything, let alone what you appear to think it shows.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Erm, mt, no mention was made of Australians. Only comparison between the "cultural and intellectual brilliance" of Austria to the so-called "dull, philistine New Zealand" was offered.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

And much of our faith in education seems to be based on a belief that it will produce graduates who are not just more knowledgeable and competent, but more ethical as well.

Is there any basis for these assumptions?

Your example is a bit bollocks, as economy was a massive factor there.
But education is too broad a thing without qualification. It is the nature of the education which matters. If your education begins with bollocks, such as Ayn Rand, then you will end with bollocks.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

The OP does seem like a bit of a non-sequentir to me. I'm not sure of the history, but I wouldn't be surprised if NZ embraced fascism if pressures had been different - for example if the UK had gone in the direction of fascism and encouraged NZ to follow. I'm not sure that the UK was ever really so far from fascism, and we've only avoided totalitarianism by a whisker. I can't say if that is the same for NZ.

But, that said, there is certainly an attitude which exists that links education to moral behaviour. Which, I think, goes all the way back to Plato and his promotion of an aristocratic governance. For Plato (apparently) the best form of governance is to separate and train a governing class of people.

To me it seems that one outcome of the impact of classical philosophy on Western society is the current preoccupation with politicians proving themselves to be "good people" - and the media trying to show that they're not - as if this has an impact on their effectiveness or policies.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there any basis in the example you cite for tying intelligence and morality? What exactly does this "cultural and intellectual brilliance" of Australia consist of? How many people in the society were responsible for making the decision to support the Anschluss? You compare New Zealanders' education to that of Austrians, but do not compare them to Australians, except for the rather grandiose and meaningless "cultural and intellectual brilliance." How many people in New Zealand were responsible for making the decision to fight against Germany? Didn't Australia eventually come around, or did they side with Germany during the entire war?

Your example is meaningless. It doesn't show anything, let alone what you appear to think it shows.

So are you saying here that NZ should better be compared to Australians than Austrians? Or is this just an typing error or misunderstanding?

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The OP does seem like a bit of a non-sequentir to me. I'm not sure of the history, but I wouldn't be surprised if NZ embraced fascism if pressures had been different - for example if the UK had gone in the direction of fascism and encouraged NZ to follow. I'm not sure that the UK was ever really so far from fascism, and we've only avoided totalitarianism by a whisker. I can't say if that is the same for NZ.

I don't think so, at least not during the war years. Some of the Regulations brought in at the time of the 1951 Watersider's Lockout were probably the closest NZ has come to that.

As for any comparison between NZ and Australia - of course everyone knows New Zealand is superior... well we (mostly) beat them at rugby [Roll Eyes]

But then what would I know, being a philistine and all [Razz]

Huia

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Not sure who gets the more pissed off with the confusion between the two countries, Austria or Australia...

Yes, OK, the comparison between 1930s Austria and NZ is analytically very vulnerable, but the questions it raised for me remain valid.

Is there a relationship between intelligence/education and morality?

Should education involve training in ethics, and if so, how does it then avoid becoming indoctrination, and if not, is it truly education or merely forcefeeding of informaton?

Why do highly intelligent and educated people fall for evil ideologies such as Nazism and communism?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Why do highly intelligent and educated people fall for evil ideologies such as Nazism and communism?

I'm not sure there is a link. Nazism was supported by a whole range of people in society for a whole load of reasons - self-interest, self-preservation, etc.

Marxism is a different type of thing - based on a relatively complex ideology developed by Marx, it requires some mental dexterity to keep up with the various schools of thought as they developed. When that developed into forms of oppressive Communism (such as in China), often support amongst the educated was for reasons of self-interest, self-preservation etc.

But unfortunately your question is basically so overgeneralised as to be impossible to answer beyond that sometimes otherwise intelligent people believe things that other intelligent people think are very stupid. Twas always the way.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

At the time of the Anschluss the Austrian economy was a basket case, while the German economy was very strong.

The Austrian people welcomed the Anschluss because they expected it would improve their day-to-day lives. Most people are much more concerned with their own well-being than they are with abstract political doctrine.

Moo

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Didn't Australia eventually come around, or did they side with Germany during the entire war?

In fact Australia, like NZ and many other countries, was at war with Germany from 3 September 1939, not almost 27 months later.

[ 05. September 2016, 11:30: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't see why intelligent people should avoid fascist or communist ideas. As others have said, the economic and political context is a very powerful influence. For example, some of the Bolsheviks were pretty bright, but then they lived in peculiar times, with a repressive regime, expanding capitalist economy, world war, a restive peasantry who wanted land, shortages of food, and so on. I guess some intelligent people cut off the king's head in England, and they had reasons for it, and no doubt saw it as an ethical step.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Why do highly intelligent and educated people fall for evil ideologies such as Nazism and communism?

Despite what others say above, I thought your original example and comparison was interesting.

I also thought that other qualitative differences between Austria and New Zealand would have been more relevant than level of education. The tradition of freedom of thought in the English speaking world, for example.

I do think that the question of why intelligent and well educated people fall for stupid and evil ideologies is a fascinating one.

The best example of this that I am aware of is the number of highly intelligent and well educated people who are atheists. While this makes obvious sense on a certain level, I am always surprised when intelligent people fall for the superficial, one-dimensional arguments that refute the existence of God.

My thought is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, plenty of atheists reverse that argument - how can intelligent people fall for pseudo-arguments for God? However, a different topic.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, plenty of atheists reverse that argument - how can intelligent people fall for pseudo-arguments for God? However, a different topic.

Of course. Yes.

And of course that is a possible response to the OP as well.

We are making assumptions about intelligence and morality in the expectation of agreement about what intelligence and morality are. It is only natural that others might see it differently.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, I know atheists who argue that religion is one of the most evil human manifestations extant. I think that is exaggerated, myself. Maybe one of the most evil, (joke). But it shows the relativity of these terms, as you say.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There is no theoretical reason why, or empirical evidence that, intelligent and well-educated people will be more moral than their opposites, and yet I, and I suspect most people, at least unconsciously think that there is.

I think most people would deny that intelligence is correlated with morality. Dawkins is the only exception I can think of offhand. We tend to think of morality as a matter of heart rather than head.
Wisdom is part of morality. Intelligence might make morality more effective, in that it can foresee consequences more carefully, but I don't think it's essential.

It's easy to assume that people who have been educated differently from what one's used to have been less educated. Apart from that, while one thinks that the right education should make people more moral it's a matter of controversy what the right education should be. (Teaching to tests is almost certainly not the right education for these purposes.)

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
I think most people would deny that intelligence is correlated with morality. Dawkins is the only exception I can think of offhand. We tend to think of morality as a matter of heart rather than head.
Wisdom is part of morality. Intelligence might make morality more effective, in that it can foresee consequences more carefully, but I don't think it's essential.

I've always liked Bertrand Russell's formulation that the good life is one that is inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Intelligence does enhance your ability to know and to understand but there is an act of will involved as well. I remember an able and ambitious senior colleague of mine claiming - in the context of a civil service reorganisation - that taking cognisance of the zones into which London is divided by TfL, in order to appreciate how said reorganisation might impact on the personal finances of the staff as introducing an unnecessarily subtle and erudite distinction into the simple division into North, South, East and West London favoured by the bosses. Understanding would have obliged him to report back to management and say: "it's a bloody stupid idea". If, relatively good, people can conveniently lower or raise their IQ, dependent on the will of management, in the British Civil Service just imagine how it can oscillate in other contexts and circumstances.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

A key, and I would have thought obvious, factor which nobody has mentioned, is that in 1918, not only had the Austro-Hungarian Empire lost, but its internal centrifugal forces + Woodrow Wilson had splattered it into fragments, leaving a rump German speaking bit with no obvious raison d'être, traditions, economy, internal glue or identity. The internal dislocation that engendered laid the unfortunate citizens open to any pat ideology going that might have carried the vague prospect of making them feel a bit better about themselves.

This did not apply to New Zealand.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Marxism is a different type of thing - based on a relatively complex ideology developed by Marx, it requires some mental dexterity to keep up with the various schools of thought as they developed.

The issue is not Marxism per se.

An intelligent person can take an interest in Marxism as an artefact of nineteenth century intellectual history, and/or extract from it suggestive directions for further development in areas such as sociology, politics and economics.

And there is no reason for not taking seriously, even when disagreeing with aspects of their platforms, Marxist parties which operate within democratic constraints, as in West Bengal and Kerala in India.

The problem is with intelligent people who committed intellectual and moral suicide by supporting regimes which turned Marxism into a rigid and oppressive fundamentalist ideology, in the name of which they justified the murder of tens of millions of victims.

quote:
When that developed into forms of oppressive Communism (such as in China), often support amongst the educated was for reasons of self-interest, self-preservation etc.

I was thinking of Westerners who freely chose to support communist systems such as those of Stalin and Mao, and who gave rise to the famous paraphrase, "Marxism is the opiate of the intelligentsia".

It is still possible to find academic apologists for North Korea.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I think the danger with too much intelligence is twofold. One you run the risk of becoming arrogant and overconfident in your intellect and ignoring others advice. Two you can use your intelligence and verbal dexterity to argue yourself into and defend propositions that your gut might not like at first but that you may want for other reasons. Sometimes it's better to have to rely on initial gut impressions of if something is ethical or not or to be more aware of emotional considerations that don't require intellectual power in the same way.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
... "Marxism is the opiate of the intelligentsia". ...

Thank you for that. I'd not hear it before.It's good. [Overused]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Misread. Apologies to all Austrians who thought I was comparing them to Australians. I can see how that might be insulting.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What exactly does this "cultural and intellectual brilliance" of Austr[]ia consist of?

If nothing else, the Austrians are the world's greatest PR specialists. They convinced the rest of the world that Hitler was German and that Beethoven was Viennese.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Erm, mt, no mention was made of Australians. Only comparison between the "cultural and intellectual brilliance" of Austria to the so-called "dull, philistine New Zealand" was offered.

In fairness, that works for Australia too. [Razz]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Misread. Apologies to all Austrians who thought I was comparing them to Australians. I can see how that might be insulting.

But not the other way around? Jesus. I'm looking for a winking emoticon here, and not seeing one...

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

All intelligence does is increase the amplitude of moral success and failure. Hopefully it increases the wavelength of success at the expense of failure's. With harmonies and chaos of course.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

So.. are we not in danger of saying that morality is divorced entirely from education and thus facing the dilemma that our whole Christian structures are essentially designed to teach and thus.. improve us morally..?

I guess we'd all accept that disciplined behaviour (in the case of religious discipline of the kind that most of us here understand) requires tuition. Then surely the problem with the Austrians was not that they believed that morality was linked to education but that they were learning the wrong moral lessons.

Or something.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'd correlate morality descending exponentially with the following liberal studies:

Social science (anthropology, economics, geography, political science, sociology, history)
Psychology
Literature
Arts (fine arts, music, performing arts)
Philosophy
Religious studies
Languages
Linguistics
Mathematics
Natural science (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, earth science)

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd correlate morality descending exponentially with the following liberal studies:

Social science (anthropology, economics, geography, political science, sociology, history)
Psychology
Literature
Arts (fine arts, music, performing arts)
Philosophy
Religious studies
Languages
Linguistics
Mathematics
Natural science (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, earth science)

In which case I'm utterly depraved.

What exactly are you driving at? My divination skills are tired.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd correlate morality descending exponentially with the following liberal studies:

Social science (anthropology, economics, geography, political science, sociology, history)
Psychology
Literature
Arts (fine arts, music, performing arts)
Philosophy
Religious studies
Languages
Linguistics
Mathematics
Natural science (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, earth science)
In which case I'm utterly depraved.

What exactly are you driving at? My divination skills are tired.

Clarification: in an entirely un-Calvinist way. Because, just, no.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Moral reasoning and moral behaviour are probably orthogonal (not correlated or not really related very much). There's no question that when I was young and hit my brother that I knew it was wrong. I did it anyway, because moral behaviour wasn't really the priority at the time, being mad at him and wanting to win was more important.

The Nazis were known to be antisemitic and otherwise obnoxious, but they offered hope. And everyone was antisemitic anyway. Their immoral ideas were thought as controllable by the army and plutocrats. But then we have to put that into context too. We had systematic and institutionalized racism in most countries at the time, much of which was supported via moral reasoning that formed itself around modern liberal thought regarding social Darwinism and the created order. Intellect can argue its way to immorality or morality, and stupidity can do the same.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd correlate morality descending exponentially with the following liberal studies:

Social science (anthropology, economics, geography, political science, sociology, history)
Psychology
Literature
Arts (fine arts, music, performing arts)
Philosophy
Religious studies
Languages
Linguistics
Mathematics
Natural science (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, earth science)
In which case I'm utterly depraved.

What exactly are you driving at? My divination skills are tired.
Clarification: in an entirely un-Calvinist way. Because, just, no.

It's not about what you bring to the party. It's what the party brings to you.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd correlate morality descending exponentially with the following liberal studies:

Social science (anthropology, economics, geography, political science, sociology, history)
Psychology
Literature
Arts (fine arts, music, performing arts)
Philosophy
Religious studies
Languages
Linguistics
Mathematics
Natural science (biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, earth science)
In which case I'm utterly depraved.

What exactly are you driving at? My divination skills are tired.

You forgot engineers/applied scientists. Bottom of the list. Utterly depraved. I should know - I'm married to one.

Now, in case it's not clear, the above wasn't meant to be serious. I think NP's assertion that moral reasoning and moral behaviour are largely orthogonal to one another is about spot on. I took a double major degree in social science and psychology*. My husband, who is indeed an engineer, could name maybe three philosophers and I promise you he has never heard of Karl Popper. He's a better person than I am by a country mile. I don't know that there will ever really be answers to the sort of questions KC proposed in the OP.

*At the University of Canterbury, where they were still very much talking about Karl Popper, quite some years later.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I didn't forget anoesis. The mechanic arts aren't covered in liberal studies. Which is a shame as there are massive design, planning, social and environmental considerations.

What would anyone say the liberal studies rankings would have been in '30s Austria?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I didn't forget anoesis. The mechanic arts aren't covered in liberal studies. Which is a shame as there are massive design, planning, social and environmental considerations.

What would anyone say the liberal studies rankings would have been in '30s Austria?

Martin, wtf are you talking about? You're really lost it this time.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The moral educational component of liberal studies primary subjects and the emphasis on those subjects in societies that spectacularly fail despite excelling in the arts and sciences?

Sorry if I've lost you.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

So what are we supposed to understand from that - Societies which emphasise science and mathematics are less moral than those which emphasise geography?

Scientists are inherently less moral than art historians?

You're doing this thing again of drive-by cryptic messages that we're all supposed to understand even though the meaning is entirely opaque.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

To you maybe, for which I apologize again. Others engaged.

It's axiomatic that a society that prioritizes technology and science over the humanities is going to pay for that in human terms.

Vide the past 350 years.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
To you maybe, for which I apologize again. Others engaged.

It's axiomatic that a society that prioritizes technology and science over the humanities is going to pay for that in human terms.

Vide the past 350 years.

It's bollocks. Have you heard of classical societies where the arts were emphasised? Are you trying to tell me that Roman or Greek societies were more ethical because they talked about poetry and philosophy?

Have you heard about societies where science and technology is underfunded and relegated so that people live without education, sanitation and healthcare and so are left only with the arts? How is that a more moral society?

Your unexamined axiom is clearly nonsensical.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

To you. 1:1 so far.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Martin - it isn't a game, it is a discussion. If you are going to make axiomatic statements, at least have the grace to discuss them.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Whatever you say mr cheesy.

Terry Jones' Medieval Lives series comes to mind. Would you rather have been a C14th peasant or a Dickensian urbanite? The type that drove Mayhew over the edge.

The accumulation of cultural intelligence is a long, slow, hideous process led by the ruling class. The benefits that trickle down are for them one way or another. Keep the workers sober and they're more productive. I see very little moral development during the march of 'intelligence' until we get to the emancipation of the working class in the second half of the C19th.

Our hands are smarter than our heads.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

I'll just pop up again and say that I'm really enjoying this discussion between the both of you. Mr Cheesy, have you read 'Technopoly' by Neil Postman? (might be out of print, actually). It is a while since I read it, but I do remember coming away a bit sobered by the reflection that it is potentially counterproductive to have the ability to perform astonishing technological feats, if that technological development helps foster an environment in which the ability or desire to critique such technologies is reduced. (It took me a long time to craft that sentence, I really hope it makes sense).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I hope you're not enjoying this as a game anoesis! And however you're enjoying this, that is not living down to your moniker.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I hope you're not enjoying this as a game anoesis! And however you're enjoying this, that is not living down to your moniker.

No, not as a game. It seems a great topic for discussion (even though I have posited that there are probably no answers), and I'm enjoying reading the points that both of you are making.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

One thing intelligence does is better able one to find loop holes in the moral laws. A simple man might say, "I find that woman attractive but I'm married, so, nope." While a man with a higher IQ may quickly convince himself that a discrete affair would ultimately make his wife happier because he would be happier.

Education also tends to bring with it a reverence for science and creative thought. Very intelligent people are more likely to have the confidence to try new things and think outside the box. Utopian communes with open marriages! Let's give it a go! Eugenics! Better humans through science! Yay!

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
While a man with a higher IQ may quickly convince himself that a discrete affair would ultimately make his wife happier because he would be happier.

Not just discrete but unique, it might be hoped.

And also discreet.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Not only does it seem intuitively obvious that morality should be somehow associated with intellect, but also that morality should be somehow be associated with aesthetic gifts and/or appreciation.

When we listen to a sublime piece of music, it is hard to think of it as ethically neutral.

Hitler loved Wagner, Lenin loved Beethoven, some of the worst popes were patrons of the greatest works of art, and countless writers, composers and painters have been complete arseholes.

It's interesting that Lenin (according to Gorky) followed his tribute to the Appassionata with, "But I cannot listen to music too often, it affects one's nerves, makes one want to say kind, stupid things and stroke the heads of those who, living in such a foul hell, can create such beauty... Better to beat the person unmercifully over the head".

Orwell wrote an essay on this problem, using Salvador Dali as an example, called Benefit of Clergy.

But then Keats wrote that, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty".

What did he mean?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Kaplan--

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Not only does it seem intuitively obvious that morality should be somehow associated with intellect, but also that morality should be somehow be associated with aesthetic gifts and/or appreciation.

Is everyone good at the same things?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I'll just pop up again and say that I'm really enjoying this discussion between the both of you. Mr Cheesy, have you read 'Technopoly' by Neil Postman? (might be out of print, actually). It is a while since I read it, but I do remember coming away a bit sobered by the reflection that it is potentially counterproductive to have the ability to perform astonishing technological feats, if that technological development helps foster an environment in which the ability or desire to critique such technologies is reduced. (It took me a long time to craft that sentence, I really hope it makes sense).

No, I've not heard of that book.

On the general point, I just don't really accept that it can possibly be true that technological societies are more moral than arty societies.

But I'm agreeing with you and Martin that technology has not made our society more ethical, it is just deeply immoral in a different kind of way to how it was 200 or 300 or more years ago.

I also can't see that engineers and scientists are inherently less moral than artists and philosophers. That kind of thinking leads to a dead end, in my opinion.

Moving back to the topic, I'd say that the morality (or lack of) of the Austrians was more-or-less independent of the focus on arts vs technology. I suspect they'd have still been keen on Nazism in the period if they'd been focussed on producing fantastic works of art - albeit that they might have found it harder to murder so many people without the tools to hand.

[ 09. September 2016, 06:59: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
While a man with a higher IQ may quickly convince himself that a discrete affair would ultimately make his wife happier because he would be happier.
Not just discrete but unique, it might be hoped.

And also discreet.

See? Intelligence makes you a smartass, and smartassity is step one into total moral depravity. I'll bet Hitler was a good speller.
[Biased]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

You will NEVER meet a happy adulterer.

Intelligence is all species is correlated with the capacity to deceive.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One thing intelligence does is better able one to find loop holes in the moral laws...

...very intelligent people are more likely to have the confidence to try new things and think outside the box. Utopian communes with open marriages! Let's give it a go! Eugenics! Better humans through science! Yay!

Peer pressure can be a force for moral good, encouraging people to restrain their anti-social impulses. Or a force for moral bad, encouraging people to commit the same culturally-approved sins as others do.

I think you're right that those who perceive themselves as relatively educated & intelligent are likely to feel less bound by peer pressure.

But that can work for good or for bad. Or neutral - readiness to try out things that have no moral component at all.

If you would make men's actions moral, a good strategy might be to encourage independence of thought and critical thinking in bad societies, and encourage conformity in good societies...

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
it is potentially counterproductive to have the ability to perform astonishing technological feats, if that technological development helps foster an environment in which the ability or desire to critique such technologies is reduced.

Perhaps "...critique the use made of such technologies" ?

So then the question is whether the technological learning that empowers conflicts in some way with the philosophical learning that enwisdoms ? Or whether the two can be married ?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
If you would make men's actions moral, a good strategy might be to encourage independence of thought and critical thinking in bad societies, and encourage conformity in good societies...

The problem with that is the bad societies think they're good...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You will NEVER meet a happy adulterer.

Intelligence is all species is correlated with the capacity to deceive.

I've met happy adulterers. The capacity for self-deception is in no way diminished by an increase in intelligence.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And they really, REALLY were fine with it? I don't believe it lilBuddha. Traitors know what they are, alone, in the dark.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And they really, REALLY were fine with it? I don't believe it lilBuddha. Traitors know what they are, alone, in the dark.

But they don't think they're traitors. They think that their particular circumstances make their case different, and so it's not really adultery, or treachery, at all.

Josephine has met or chatted with people who have had abortions, but don't consider them abortions because abortions are wrong, and their "procedure" was necessary, and so it isn't wrong, and so it isn't really an abortion. So under their own presuppositions, they should think that they committed a sin. But they excuse themselves (but not others of course) because their circumstances make their decisions different.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

That's pretty basic to being human, IMHO. If you've done something that is (or might be considered) wrong or against the rules, you can get in trouble. Most people don't want to get in trouble. We start figuring out ways around it when we're very young.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye mousethief, therefore lilBuddha, we're experts at deluding ourselves.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The thing is, I'm projecting and I know it. I know my potential for treachery. I may have repented of old treacheries, atoned, made amends even. But I have come SO close since. As helpless as a rabbit in the headlights.

Posted by Odds Bodkin (# 18663) on :

Hello, hope you don't mind me wading in to the deep end for my first post here. [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And yet despite (or because of?) their country's cultural and intellectual brilliance, most Austrians (contra the Sound Of Music legend) welcomed the 1938 Anschluss and subsequent Nazification and incorporation into Germany's armed forces, while dull, philistine New Zealand fought staunchly on the anti-fascist side in the twentieth century's single most significant clash of good and evil.

We may wish to consider the impact of the recession on the Austrians, and their consequent desire for order to be restored, along with the NZ treatment of the Maori...

quote:
And much of our faith in education seems to be based on a belief that it will produce graduates who are not just more knowledgeable and competent, but more ethical as well.

Is there any basis for these assumptions?

Certainly. Intelligence is needed to discern truth is it not; the greater the intelligence the greater the capacity for truth recognition? And so is needed to better understand what is or is not moral.

Which of course is no guarantee; graduates are after all the people who design and make such things as bio-weapons and nuclear bombs (yes, I know, bombs are so 20th Century, but you know what I mean). But intelligence is needed for understanding, and understanding is needed to be truly moral.

[ 16. September 2016, 08:22: Message edited by: Odds Bodkin ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Welcome to the Ship, Odds Bodkin!

There is a "Welcome Aboard" thread in All Saints if you would like to introduce yourself.

Happy sailing on the Ship!

Posted by Odds Bodkin (# 18663) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Welcome to the Ship, Odds Bodkin!

There is a "Welcome Aboard" thread in All Saints if you would like to introduce yourself.

Happy sailing on the Ship!

Aha, thank you! I'll toddle along. [Smile]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0