Can an immoral man be intelligent?

[Ixtab]

Thomas Carlyle says it is impossible to be proficient in learning and deficient in morals and virtues. In order to learn about a thing, you must love that thing, must sympathise with it; and in order to sympathise with anything whatsoever you must be "virtuously related to it":

"If [a man] have not the justice to put down his own selfishness at every turn, the courage to stand by the dangerous-true at every turn, how shall he know? His virtues, all of them, will lie recorded in his knowledge. Nature, with her truth, remains to the bad, to the selfish and the pusillanimous forever a sealed book: what such can know of Nature is mean, superficial, small; for the uses of the day merely."

Thoughts? Can an immoral man be intelligent?

[Billy Score]

I think that it is possible but an immoral man can only go so far, because he is still a slave to his desires. On the surface he can be intelligent, but it is without depth.

[Sinclair]

Loving something does not require that that thing be good, and it's definitely possible to be informed about something in a dispassionate manner.

Intelligence and morality, I think, are not especially related.

[Ixtab]

Loving something does not require that that thing be good, ...Obsessing over it, perhaps, lusting for it, certainly, but no, it is impossible, as a matter of definition, to love something which one has no feelings about, something which one considers not to be 'good' in some sense.

... possible to be informed about something in a dispassionate manner.Can you give me an example which is not a practical, that is superficial, knowledge of that thing? It is inconceivable to me that a person can be well informed about something in a dispassionate manner for the sole sake of being informed about it and without a desire for practical application of that knowledge.

Intelligence and morality, I think, are not especially related.I think they are most intimately related.

[Sinclair]

There are plenty of people who follow a moral code who are not especially bright, and plenty of people who are smart who are immoral.

The smart moral people are more capable of understanding their morality, the smart immoral people are more capable of intellectually justifying what they're doing. Dumb moral and immoral people are more likely to justify it with something simple: Everything from "God will zap me if I'm bad" to "Drinking and driving is MY RIGHT, fuck you!"

And of course, most people think they're "good", that they're doing the right thing. How many people who end up doing evil PLAN to do evil? The businessman who destroys unions and fires workers doubtlessly thinks of himself as an entrepreneur, perhaps a necessary part of the system, depending on his intelligence he might explain it as "Got to feed my family", "If I don't do it somebody else will", or whatever.

[Ixtab]

... and plenty of people who are smart who are immoral. I can't think of any such individual.

[Billy Score]

I can't think of any such individual.
What would you say of Mozart. I find his behavior immoral but clearly he was a prodigy.

[Ixtab]

What would you say of Mozart. I find his behavior immoral but clearly he was a prodigy.I am not familiar with his biography, but through his music I can tell that he was not without his virtues.

[The_Baddest_Seed]

Yes, although I think that morality and intelligence correlate closely and positively. I know little about Carlylye but have little respect for the quotation that you quoted.

As Sinclair said, knowledge of a thing does not require empathy with it.

A man can not put down his own selfishness. It is impossible to act other than in one's perceived self-interest. Carlyle makes the puerile mistake of equating 'goodness' with service to the Bourgeois community.

The more intelligent a man in general the better he organises things into the pyramid of sophistication as it relates to the Will embodied in him - that is, the more moral he is.

[jcs]

Kaczynski went to Harvard at 16. I'd say he was quite intelligent. I, personally, don't consider his actions terribly 'immoral'--from his standpoint, his actions were probably the right thing to do--, but some might think blowing someone up is a bad thing.

"Can an immoral man be intelligent?"
Depends on the definition of 'morality.'

[Sinclair]

When talking about Kaczynski, it's important to remember that the reason he went a little loopy was probably because of some relatively unethical psychological experiments that Harvard was doing that he was a volunteer in.

[Felix the Cat]

Kaczynski was a brilliant mathematician and a highly intelligent man

Unfortunately, like many intelligent men, he worries about issues that will only become serious problems far into the future

This puts him out of touch with mainstream society, since most of the featherless bipeds populating the planet simply don't give a damn what happens to the world after they die

After years of futile propagandizing, Kaczynski drew the conclusion that only fear of violence can make people behave in a socially responsible manner

He should have just taken the soma and quit worrying...

[Billy Score]

He should have just taken the soma and quit worrying...

Worst. Novel. Ever.

[Roland]

Can an immoral man be intelligent?

Certainly. How he ought to behave towards his passion could easily be governed by strict desire and not rationality.

[Vindex]

Yeah, but who's morals are we going to define by, maybe some are not immoral there just beyond peoples moral opinions. Then you get people who are not immoral they are plain amoral. Have to have a set of morals frist, to be immoral.lol

[Anarch]

No. Immorality and intelligence are contradictory.

[Banat]

I wonder why would morality and intelligence have to exclude one another?

[Dionysus]

Certainly, yes. He can also be stupid. The rational, amoral man is quite intelligent.

[Starr]

I think that it is possible but an immoral man can only go so far, because he is still a slave to his desires.

Who isn't, at least to different degrees?

[Niko Bellic]

I wonder why would morality and intelligence have to exclude one another?

I'm clueless.

I'm also Exhibit A :D

[Niko Bellic]

I'm clueless.

I'm also Exhibit A :D

I want to expand on this. First, it was a joke, but there must be truth in humor for it to work. I wasn't making a statement of my own estimation of my intelligence, I'm offering myself as an example for the continuation of this discussion. My lack of morality should be known to any longtime phorafeeb, draw your own conclusions about my intelligence, and use it to advance your opinion on the question. It would be stupid of me to deny that I am one of the less intelligent members of this board, but I am slightly above average, and certainly better informed than the average Joe out there. My Libertarian philosophy is what enables me to draw certain lines on morality. I won't ever kill anyone without a damn good reason, I will never be a rapist, or a thief(I DESPISE thieves), and I go by the mantra of if I'm not directly harming you or your property, then it doesn't matter what I do, so use that to draw any conclusions on my morality.





I'm also modest, and would never consider being an attention whore.:D

[Anarch]

I wonder why would morality and intelligence have to exclude one another?

Intelligence as the ability to adapt to an environment. Morality as an 'ought' for dealing with one's environment. What is doing the adapting, and what is the 'ought'?

[Banat]

Intelligence as the ability to adapt to an environment. Morality as an 'ought' for dealing with one's environment. What is doing the adapting, and what is the 'ought'?

There are other definitions of intelligence beside that conformist one, e. g. as the ability for abstract thinking etc., but that aside: morality isn't just an 'ought' for dealing with one's environment, but also a deep belief that that way is 'right'. Morality is an obligation one is free to truly accept or not, and that doesn't mainly depend on his intelligence, but on something else, as we see it in everyday life.

[Helios Panoptes]

When talking about Kaczynski, it's important to remember that the reason he went a little loopy was probably because of some relatively unethical psychological experiments that Harvard was doing that he was a volunteer in.

Can you provide a link detailing the specifics of these experiments? I found quite a few general ones, but they weren't informative enough.

As far as I know, there is no correlation between IQ and moral behavior. Perhaps you mean something else by intelligence. If so, it would be difficult to quantify. I'm also curious about what is meant by morality. A lot of intelligent people, myself included, are at odds with the modern West's morality, which is a different thing than to be unethical.

[Sinclair]

Can you provide a link detailing the specifics of these experiments? I found quite a few general ones, but they weren't informative enough.

As far as I know, there is no correlation between IQ and moral behavior. Perhaps you mean something else by intelligence. If so, it would be difficult to quantify. I'm also curious about what is meant by morality. A lot of intelligent people, myself included, are at odds with the modern West's morality, which is a different thing than to be unethical.

I remember reading it in a magazine, chances are it was either the NYT Magazine, Harper's, the New York Times, or the Atlantic Monthly. That's it. All I can remember.

[daisy]

i define immoral as deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong and
as that which fails to enhance the life of all involved.
i know a lot of smart people who were immoral. history lies because of it. i still hear some people praise these smart immoral people as geniuses even after they are dead. i think to myself how can this immoral person go down in history as a noble honest genius when they were so immoral. even though history lies about them they will eventually still have to answer to God.