Morality and Intelligence

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

Nick_A:
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” Simone Weil
One could also say: Weil was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them from an imaginary God who bestows grace.
So the question becomes how to consciously open to receive the help of grace in regards to the human condition you refer to.
That is the direction your thoughts and beliefs lead you, but you couch them in term of absolutes such as “essence of religion” and “sole foundation of the good”, that sets Simone Weil as unquestionable moral and intellectual authorities. In addition, you homogenize a diversity of views so that they appear to be in accord with her own, and your own, as if there is a clear, well established differentiation that provides two options - either agree with you or be stupid and wrong with regard to all moral and intellectual questions.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Belindi »

Nick_A wrote:
Man in the universe is too far from the Source to be told anything. This is why we need the Son as an intermediary. Help is there already. People just deny it and are closed to it so everything remains the same.
Do you believe that this Son is the unique Jesus Christ, and no other individual?

Do you believe that the reward for believing and trusting in the saving power of JC is reward in life after death of the body?
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Nick_A »

Belindi wrote:Nick_A wrote:
Man in the universe is too far from the Source to be told anything. This is why we need the Son as an intermediary. Help is there already. People just deny it and are closed to it so everything remains the same.
Do you believe that this Son is the unique Jesus Christ, and no other individual?

Do you believe that the reward for believing and trusting in the saving power of JC is reward in life after death of the body?
You are probably familiar with the name I Am that I Am for God in Exodus. I Am is a very meaningful expression. Jesus as a Son of God descended from a higher level of reality within which inner unity creating “I Am” is the norm. Jesus was not the only Son of God. Where the father is I Am, the son is also I Am but on a lesser scale

On earth we lack inner unity. We are a plurality. We are many so incapable of I Am. We have to add something to I Am. I am a this or that but I am doesn’t stand alone. I am as inner unity is our conscious potential.

Jesus mission on earth as I understand it was to add the vertical conscious element to our psyche so we could attain I Am and acquire conscious inner unity for the sake of conscious evolution

Initially Christianity was an accelerated Way. This means conscious evolution didn’t just follow universal evolution but was intentionally actualized through esoteric practice. That was for those on the level of an Apostle.

The seed of the soul is what evolves so it isn't a matter of trust but of conscious awareness. Whatever our personality does is unimportant. However if it becomes completely dominant it can starve out the seed of the soul and it dies. This is what Jesus meant by letting the dead bury their dead. Conscious evolution refers to the seed of the soul. If it doesn’t grow because for whatever reason it becomes bad seed, then it dissolves into its essential three forces and continues on the universal flow of involution. Where evolution is the path moving closer to the source along the chain of being, involution is the path moving further down into creation and away from the source as does other forms of organic life when it dies. However, good seed inwardly aware of an attraction to higher consciousness is saved in the Christ as good seed and does return. I believe my awareness makes me good seed. I surely hope I'm right. :)

-- Updated Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:47 pm to add the following --
Fooloso4 wrote:Nick_A:
“Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.” Simone Weil
One could also say: Weil was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them from an imaginary God who bestows grace.
So the question becomes how to consciously open to receive the help of grace in regards to the human condition you refer to.
That is the direction your thoughts and beliefs lead you, but you couch them in term of absolutes such as “essence of religion” and “sole foundation of the good”, that sets Simone Weil as unquestionable moral and intellectual authorities. In addition, you homogenize a diversity of views so that they appear to be in accord with her own, and your own, as if there is a clear, well established differentiation that provides two options - either agree with you or be stupid and wrong with regard to all moral and intellectual questions.
I do not believe in a personal God so grace is not given as a favor or reward. Grace pemeates our universe and we can either be open to it or not. Our imagination prevents receiving the nourishment of the energy of grace starving our higher parts much like leaves of a green plant denied light kills the plant.

Why deny absolutes? You can deny that in matters of quantity 2+3=5 and create your own math but I believe in the absolute that 2+3=5.

Religion like love and art is a relative term. It can mean anything from the most superficial to the most profound. A person with the need and a true seeker of truth outgrows the superficial to experience the profound.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Dark Matter »

Nick_A wrote: Religion like love and art is a relative term. It can mean anything from the most superficial to the most profound. A person with the need and a true seeker of truth outgrows the superficial to experience the profound.
"All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition." (UB) Some peer more deeply than others.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Belindi »

Nick_A wrote:
(Belindi wrote)Do you believe that this Son is the unique Jesus Christ, and no other individual?

Do you believe that the reward for believing and trusting in the saving power of JC is reward in life after death of the body?


(Nick responded)You are probably familiar with the name I Am that I Am for God in Exodus. I Am is a very meaningful expression. Jesus as a Son of God descended from a higher level of reality within which inner unity creating “I Am” is the norm. Jesus was not the only Son of God. Where the father is I Am, the son is also I Am but on a lesser scale
Yes, I know about avatars, and the whole of your reply of which I copied only the main sentence interests me. But you didn't answer my question: is Jesus Christ unique as Son of God, or are there other sons of God?

Neither did you answer my second question.

-- Updated April 9th, 2017, 2:03 am to add the following --

Is Jesus Christ unique in being the same substance as God, or are other avatars also the same (supernatural) substance as God?

Are there as many sons of God as there are good actions by humans? In other words, can any person become a son of God temporarily as long as the good action is being done? Are you aware that e.g. 'son of man', 'son of God' , 'son of Abraham, 'son of enlightenment' , are tropes and 'son of' is a particularly popular trope among Biblical writers?

If Simone Weil were masculine gender, would she be son of God?
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Nick_A:

First things first.

I have already provided explanations and justifications for your making prejudiced statements supported by ignorance. You have not denied them because you are unable to argue against the claim.

In my last post I accused you of either not reading my posts or being dishonest. This, I followed with, “If you can think of another explanation which reflects you in a kinder light, then I would like to hear it”. You haven’t offered an alternative explanation. So which is it, ignorance or dishonesty?

I hope we are clear now that, based on “silly assertions without ever explaining anything”, my 27 levels of reality top your two or three.

I have demonstrated your lack of understanding in relation to a text which you selected in order to try to back up one or your assertions and which, in fact, contradicted it. So, when you say, “Without the experience of pondering you cannot understand these things yet you would want to argue about what you don’t understand”, I suggest that you are left with a great deal to ponder.

I am reminding you of some things which you would clearly find it more convenient to ignore.

Now to your last post.

It is refreshing to note that you have taken the trouble to look up a definition. I shall remind you, however, that the last time I did this – to research ‘vertical time’ – you ignored it. I shall not do likewise.

I accept a definition of atheism which distinguises between those who assert that no god exists and those who think it unlikely but are unable to prove the notion. You call this a distinction between ‘negative’ and ‘positive’. The far more common labelling these days is between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ atheism and it is that terminology which I shall use.

I have little sympathy for hard atheists. I can think of no way in which such a position can be proved or demonstrated, in the same way that I do not believe that the existence of God can be proved. I have argued with the only one I know who holds such views on this forum. I can name nobody else in the world who proclaims such a belief. If you can provide a name, then I would very much like to know it. They are certainly in a tiny minority of all atheists.

In none of your previous statements about atheists, however, have you acknowledged or refered to this distinction. You have lumped them all together. So why are you making this distinction now? Have you just found out about it?

None of this answers my simple question; “What belief is held in common by atheists which enables you to criticise them?”

Telling me that there are two types of atheists does absolutely nothing to answer this question. If you are unable to answer – as was the case with my very first question – then I shall refer you back to one of my previous statements:

“My accusation is based on your condemnation of whole groups of people, based on what you think you know about a selected few. That is prejudice. It is based on ignorance”.

Prejudice. Ignorance.
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.”
That may well be the case. But to assume that all religious people are fanatics or that all non-religious people are fanatics would be to exhibit prejudice and ignorance. You have refered to ‘secularists’ and ‘atheists’. You did not qualify your selection. You did not say, ‘fanatical atheists’, or ‘hard atheists’ or ‘some atheists’ or ‘a few atheists’. You generalised, ‘atheists’. Prejudice. Ignorance.

How do you think it would sound if I claimed that Christians are ignorant, or that Mormons want to repress all others? Is there a difference? Prejudice based on ignorance.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

I am putting on my moderator’s hat. The topic is morality and intelligence. While it may have been appropriate to consider the relationship between morality, intelligence, and religion, this has turned into a sustained defense of personal religious beliefs, which is not appropriate.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Belindi »

Like other brain areas the frontal lobe is concerned in intelligence. The special intelligence of the frontal lobe is concerned with cooperative interaction with others.

When the frontal lobe of the brain is out of action for whatever reason intelligence is affected by depleted ability to cooperate with others. For instance the subject may become uninhibited or irresponsible.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Fooloso4:

I agree with you entirely.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

Belindi,

I think you raised an interesting point regarding intelligence and morality in the thread on computer consciousness. There are people working on the problem of moral decision with regard to artificial intelligence. For example: “Moral Machines”: http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ Or this one with the catchy title “Why self-driving cars must be programmed to kill: technologyreview.com/s/542626/why-self- ... d-to-kill/
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Iapetus »

When Nick_A started to write about logical reasoning (the irony) and ‘the excluded middle’ I was trying to manoeuvre the conversation towards a possible link between logical reasoning and levels of education. This may be related to intelligence if it can be demonstrated that intelligence is not entirely innate and can be improved by competent education. I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that both these positions can be supported, as long we refer to that part of intelligence which can be measured.

If it can be demonstrated that there is a link between intelligence and the use of logical reasoning, then it may well be possible to argue that the use of logical reasoning enables a more sophisticated response to ‘moral’ dilemmas.

All this assumes the demonstration of a series of complex links.

It assumes that ‘more sophisticated’ equates with ‘better’ which is, possibly, dangerous.

The association of education with intelligence can be fraught with pitfalls. Education can be directed towards specific ‘moral purposes’ – to acceptance of specific religious ideals, or to the following of non-religious political or social dogmas. It is, in fact, extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure that education does not do this. It is how we acquire many of our cultural associations.

It assumes that we all understand the same thing by ‘moral’ and I am certain that this is not the case.

It ignores the issue of motivation – independent of intelligence – which I believe is extremely important in examining ‘moral’ responses.

These, as well as many other factors, lead me to believe that the issues mentioned in the original post are far too broad to result in worthwhile conclusions. The questions need to be narrowed down.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

Iapetus:
These, as well as many other factors, lead me to believe that the issues mentioned in the original post are far too broad to result in worthwhile conclusions. The questions need to be narrowed down.
But the question engendered your response which raised some interesting questions. In my opinion good philosophical questions open things up. And that, of course, leads to another question - whether priority is given in philosophy to questions or answers. Philosophy, as the trial of Socrates demonstrated, can be a destabilizing activity. With regard to morality we must consider the relationship between, on the one hand, following the rules and maintaining order, and, on the other, the problem of perpetuating moral injustice.
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Fooloso4:

I don't disagree with you. it might engender interesting discussion but the danger is that such a discussion is likely to wander all over the place, particularly when more than two people are participating. I think that has been demonstrated. If the discussion loses cohesion, then the risk is that people lose interest. At that point some focus is required. That is where I think that more specific questions come in.

I think that certainly applies to the concept of morality itself and of whether it is an individual or a group thing or whether it is subjective or objective or whether it can ever be truly objective. This discussion, of itself, can encompass many thousands of words. If, however, somebody defined it specifically for the purposes of this discussion, we would have something with which to agree or disagree. We would then, at least, have a clearer of idea of what we are talking about. I, personally, don't like using the terms, 'moral' or 'morality' because of the potential for misunderstanding. I tend to use them in inverted commas. I think the discipline of searching for more precise terms encourages clearer thinking.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Fooloso4 »

Iapetus:
I don't disagree with you. it might engender interesting discussion but the danger is that such a discussion is likely to wander all over the place, particularly when more than two people are participating.


And I don’t disagree with you. Two sides of the coin. I originally wrote a longer reply that acknowledged the need for focus, but I wanted to keep it relatively short. In general I am less opposed to the tendency to wander than some others. I am in agreement with Socrates’ idea of following the argument where it leads. But, of course, Socrates was skilled at following in the sense of tracking, and the dialogues manage to tie things together to give coherence to the whole. There is also the idea of a plurality of voices and concerns. In this sense the goal is not to form a coherent whole but perhaps at its best a harmony created by the tension and distance between notes.
If the discussion loses cohesion, then the risk is that people lose interest.
Well, I think that sometimes the tangents can be more interesting than the original question. One can always remind participants of the original question. It may be that if one is not successful in doing this it is because people have already lost interest in it.

These are challenges that a discussion leader must deal with. Too much control can thwart the conversation, but if things get too far out of bounds it becomes a mess . Here there are no discussion leaders, although some may attempt to dominate the discussion. Like a jam session without a leader, sometimes the result is music to the ears and other times just noise. And, as with a jam session, the guy who plays the same thing over and over on every song can be a real problem.

And now that I have managed to move the discussion even further off topic by talking about going off topic I will shut up (a highly valuable skill that even some very good musicians never learn).
Iapetus
Posts: 402
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morality and Intelligence

Post by Iapetus »

Reply to Fooloso4:

I guess that is why I don't post very often. If I want to converse about something specific and I want to examine an idea in detail, then it drives me nuts if we wander off the point because we will probably not end up examining that idea. We may or may not encounter interesting alternative ideas by roaming but that is often not the case and it is not what interests me. I think the rules of the Forum are also intended to favour keeping to the point.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021