There are people of high intellect who are morally deficient, and people of average or below average intellect who hold to a high moral standard. To equate or even suggest that the degree of morality one possess is somehow contingent upon his intellect is absurd, IMO.
As for the ‘evolution of thought’ man has advanced rapidly over the past century in the fields of science and technology.
As for" morality" I think the late Senator of NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was spot concerning the status of our present culture - “Defining deviancy down.”
Intellect and moral deficiency - Richard Milhous Nixon, and William Jefferson Clinton.
When you speak of people being morally deficient or having a high moral standard what standard are you comparing it to and what makes that comparison more valid than the moral code of the Vikings or the Inca or the Druids, or my friend down the street?
Well, since no one has proposed that odd thought, we are still wondering what your “Hmm” was all about.
Developments in evolution or ethics make their impacts on populations, not individuals. Within any population, there will be individuals of high or low intellect and high or low morality. However, there is no claim that all intellect will result in high morality. The general population will demonstrate superior intellectual properties to distant ancestors as well as better morals, but there is nothing in evolutionary theory that claims that the most intelligent will be the most moral.
Had you provided evidence (rather than cherry-picked anecdotes) that the most intelligent people were universally the least moral, you might have have raised a legitimate challenge to the assertion, above. Your cherry-picked “counter examples” do nothing more than demonstrate a failure to understand Evolutionary Theory. A species may evolve to be faster than its ancestors, but there is liable to be enough genetic variation that some individuals with longer legs may be slower than individuals with shorter legs. Nothing in Evolutionary Theory dictates that all the individuals with longer legs will be faster than all the individuals with shorter legs. The trend occurs as an average throughout the entire population and is not expressed equally in every individual.
Passing judgement on them for a couple of mistakes they made–and disregarding anything else they did–would be considered immoral by some. Maybe even by the guy who wrote this:
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
Notice that their “immorality” is not even similar. Nixon’s sins were around governing, as far as I know he was always faithful to Pat. Clinton’s sins were around sex - he was moral in his governance, even if you disagreed with him.
And of course two examples have nothing to do with evolution.
I am not certain there is a standard for morality across all cultures. Until that baseline is established, we are engaged in a philosophical bullsession and not discussion sociology or anthropology.
That being said, as we are the descendants of monkeys who were successful because they cooperated with each other, I would say that which is “moral” is that which adds to the survival of my tribe. Over the past few centuries, people have been able to expand their definition of “tribe” to include many more folks than their immediate family and neighbors, but long-term survival is still the goal.
Notice that their “immorality” is not even similar. Nixon’s sins were around governing, as far as I know he was always faithful to Pat. Clinton’s sins were around sex - he was moral in his governance, even if you disagreed with him.
And of course two examples have nothing to do with evolution.
[/QUOTE
Look up the definition of the word “immorality” It is synonymous with 'corruption
I agree, “nothing to do with evolution.”
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, though I don’t think that was/is the case here.
Learn to distinguish Spiritual laws and principles from those laws that are established by man/government.
Hmm.
A few points:
“Impact”, starts with the individual and is transmitted into the culture. These ‘individuals’ are more commonly referred to as leaders, innovators etc.
“The general population will demonstrate superior intellectual properties to distant ancestors as well as better morals,” False.
There really is no “challenge” to raise here, IMO. Life and history itself is a testimony that" intellect" and “morality” are independent of one another.
“h’m [hmm] Show IPA
interjection
(used typically to express thoughtful absorption, hesitation, doubt, or perplexity.)”
Keyword: “evolution” as it relates to intellect and morals.
Morality/immorality is a measure of proper or improper behaviour. Whether it is a standard across all cultures is what I am asking you to show. Why should the standard that you champion be the one used globally? What makes it better than the rest? How can you show an objective morality? What would differentiate an objective morality from a subjective morality?
So what? Unless you can demonstrate that all “leaders” of every evolutionary development universally demonstrate exactly the modifications that lead to evolutionary advancement–a point that is clearly not true–then you are still cherry picking individuals and pretending that they demonstrate a failure of evolutionary development that is really not in play.
Whatever your opinion might be, simply denying it fails to make a case.
I could gratuitously deny your gratuitous assertion.
Actually, I will go one better and actually make a genuine argument against your baseless pontificating.
We have observed a rudimentary “morality” (or lack thereof) among various Great Apes. Humans clearly have greater intellect than such populations and, while there are many moral failings among humans, humans have gone so far as to establish societies that have established laws to provide explicit guidance for morality, even going so far as to try (not yet successfully) to set laws for warfare.
Your attempt to equate individual intelligence with individual morality is nothing more than an effort to ignore the fact that evolution operates on the level of the population rather than that of the individual. Yes, evolutionary traits are expressed in individuals, but any given individual may or may not be carrying forward specific traits. It is the overall behavior and development displayed among populations that indicates evolution.
Moral standards vary and are as numerous as the existing cultures themselves.
However, there has to be at least a base-level standard of morality for any culture to survive.
Intrinsicvalue provided one example of a base-level standard of morality.
“Subjective/Objective?”:eek: IMO, It is the conscience which sets the moral standard. And by design, that “conscience” exists within every individual capable of rational thought.
Maybe even by the guy who wrote this: