Do you find stupidity immoral?

[dumbest man on earth]

judgement
1.
the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.

We all come to conclusions about people. We all judge others. Why are you making it sound like no one does? We all discriminate. Just...look it up.

I encourage you to visit the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. In it there are two doors, one marked "Prejudiced" and the other "Not Prejudiced," and you are asked to walk through the one that best describes you. The "Not Prejudiced" door is permanently locked.

Since we are all prejudiced in some way, it would follow that judging others is not always irrational and not always immoral. Now there IS prejudices, such as racism, that are irrational, and we ALREADY consider those people who harbor such prejudice immoral!

Why do we hate racists so much? Because their thinking is irrational, that's why! Care to debate this?

garbonzo, I, dmoe, personally find your use of the words : "we" and/or "all" or "we all", irksome and objectionable.

In your example above involving "the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles", your statement that : "The "Not Prejudiced" door is permanently locked", if true - seems to me, to indicate a prior "presumed" or "assumed" "prejudice" or "intolerance" in and of itself, by the mere (again, if true) fact of simply by being permanently locked!

I, dmoe, personally do not perceive nor believe that "everyone" (the "we" and/or "all" or "we all" I object to!) in the world practices or suffers the faults of assuming, presuming or passing judgment on anyone or everyone else.
Also, I personally do not perceive nor believe that everyone in the world deigns to assume, presume or judge, through purely personal perception, the actions of everyone and everything else!

To me, dmoe, assumptions, presumptions and prejudices are weaknesses of one's own self - and true judgment should only be exercised and applied to the assessment of one's own self!

garbonzo, can you not honestly agree that as individuals, the perception of another person's actions or motives are purely and singularly limited to one's own self, and even if some others seem to concur with some of those personal perceptions - in no case is there ever complete and full concurrence by every other individual across the world!

Heck, even within the ranks of the "elected" and/or the "appointed" Judges, full and complete concurrence rarely happens!

garbonzo, should you not be using the words : "I" or "me" or "some people", instead of the words : "we" and/or "all" or "we all", when expressing purely personal opinions/views/beliefs?

 

[birch]

intentional stupidity is immoral because it's just really dishonesty in disguise. this is what is wrong but it's often hard to gauge or read as that is the point of deception. cognitive dissonance, cheating etc can be one form as well as twisting the truth. unintentional stupidity is not immoral though because the person will modify or change something when they become aware or understand. intentional stupidity (purposely being wrong) can't be modified without punishment or repercussions.

what's interesting and twisted is a segment of society views intentional stupidity as actually being clever if they pull the wool over someone's eyes when it's really not because it requires cheating or fraud. it depends on context too though, if it's a defensive measure it can actually be the moral act but it can also be used just for the opposite.

 

[garbonzo]

garbonzo, I, dmoe, personally find your use of the words : "we" and/or "all" or "we all", irksome and objectionable.

In your example above involving "the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles", your statement that : "The "Not Prejudiced" door is permanently locked", if true - seems to me, to indicate a prior "presumed" or "assumed" "prejudice" or "intolerance" in and of itself, by the mere (again, if true) fact of simply by being permanently locked!

I, dmoe, personally do not perceive nor believe that "everyone" (the "we" and/or "all" or "we all" I object to!) in the world practices or suffers the faults of assuming, presuming or passing judgment on anyone or everyone else.
Also, I personally do not perceive nor believe that everyone in the world deigns to assume, presume or judge, through purely personal perception, the actions of everyone and everything else!

To me, dmoe, assumptions, presumptions and prejudices are weaknesses of one's own self - and true judgment should only be exercised and applied to the assessment of one's own self!

Well, hey, you can believe the sun isn't real too. You can believe the sun is just a large lamp and we are in a glass dome. That doesn't make it true. I'm relaying a fact of human behavior, and you not believing it has nothing to do with me.

You obviously view all discrimination as inherently malicious, while I soundly reject that notion.

Common everyday example: two equally-qualified people go into a job interview. One is sharply dressed with a clean haircut. The other presents a slovenly appearance. His clothes, while they would adhere to the company dress code, are ill-fitting and stained. The HR manager hires the crisp-looking man because in his experience, people who pay more care to their personal appearance and hygiene are more responsible workers. Is it necessarily true that the well-dressed man is a better worker than the unkempt one? Certainly not. The HR manager is discriminating, and in a way that against which legislating is impossible, and in my contention unnecessary.

Another, perhaps even more illustrative example: suppose Bob owns a convenience store, and late at night the store is empty when a large, tattoed man with a shaved head walks into his store. The last three times his store was robbed, the perpetrators were also tattooed men with shaved heads who came in late at night. As the man approaches the counter, Bob moves his hand a bit closer to the shotgun stored underneath. The man turns out to be harmless, and happily leaves with his purchase, while Bob is happy with the sales he just made. Was Bob discriminating? Of course - against men with shaved heads, against tattooed men, against men who shop late at night, against eve the male gender. Did anything come of it? No. Bob didn't refuse tattooed men entry to his store, or shoot them on sight as they entered. He does not refuse such men his goods and services, but he does take extra precautions.

Or another, maybe you see a dark figure late at night while walking home, and you know you are in a bad neighborhood. Would it not be rational to cross the street to avoid whoever it is, especially if they look like a rough character? This is precaution and rational. We all do it, or we would die very quickly. Discrimination / judging others is an evolutionary advantage, and that's why we have it. Do you not have sexual preference? That's judging others. Seriously. Why am I having this discussion?

garbonzo, can you not honestly agree that as individuals, the perception of another person's actions or motives are purely and singularly limited to one's own self, and even if some others seem to concur with some of those personal perceptions - in no case is there ever complete and full concurrence by every other individual across the world!

Heck, even within the ranks of the "elected" and/or the "appointed" Judges, full and complete concurrence rarely happens!

garbonzo, should you not be using the words : "I" or "me" or "some people", instead of the words : "we" and/or "all" or "we all", when expressing purely personal opinions/views/beliefs?

This is a non sequitur. How does any of this relate to if we all discriminate or judge? Of course we all have our own beliefs on who and how to discriminate, but we all discriminate none the less. This has nothing to do with "complete concurrence" of opinion. I was simply relaying a fact.

 

[garbonzo]

intentional stupidity is immoral because it's just really dishonesty in disguise. this is what is wrong but it's often hard to gauge or read as that is the point of deception. cognitive dissonance, cheating etc can be one form as well as twisting the truth. unintentional stupidity is not immoral though because the person will modify or change something when they become aware or understand. intentional stupidity (purposely being wrong) can't be modified without punishment or repercussions.

what's interesting and twisted is a segment of society views intentional stupidity as actually being clever if they pull the wool over someone's eyes when it's really not because it requires cheating or fraud. it depends on context too though, if it's a defensive measure it can actually be the moral act but it can also be used just for the opposite.

What if someone killed someone, but, hypothetically, they were under mind control and not aware of their actions, nor intended to do it prior to the mind control. Is the action immoral or not? Of course it is. Intent should not be a deciding factor on if an action is immoral or not. Remember, I was never talking about immoral or stupid people, because I think that is simply ridiculous. You agree intentional stupidity is immoral, I urge you to expand that range and grant all stupid actions immoral.

 

[paddoboy]

I think the inference of the OP is immoral.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Well, hey, you can believe the sun isn't real too. You can believe the sun is just a large lamp and we are in a glass dome. That doesn't make it true. I'm relaying a fact of human behavior, and you not believing it has nothing to do with me.

garbonzo, you are not "...relaying a fact of human behavior..." that is indicative of all human beings - though possibly they may be indicative of your own personal behavior.
Hence, your statement may be relaying a fact of garbonzo's behavior. That does not make it true for "all" human behavior.
Ergo...me, or anyone else for that matter, not believing it - has everything to do with you.

You obviously view all discrimination as inherently malicious, while I soundly reject that notion.

garbonzo, it seems that your own perceptions are severely inadequate at detecting the "obvious". Another "notion" that your seeming "inadequacy of perception" will allow you to "soundly reject" also!

Do you not have sexual preference? That's judging others. Seriously. Why am I having this discussion?

garbonzo, my own personal "sexual preference" is a judgment that I have made - of myself, upon myself - not a judgment of others.

garbonzo, you are not "having" a "discussion" - you are "preaching your own personal beliefs"!
You seem to believe those to be "The Only True Facts in Existence"!
You then, seem to have decided that anything not in full concurrence with "your own personal beliefs" is simply a "notion" with no credence, that again, you seem to deign only worthy of being "soundly reject(ed)" and cast aside.

garbonzo, that is not discussing anything - that is just exhibiting seemingly disgusting behavior.

This is a non sequitur. How does any of this relate to if we all discriminate or judge? Of course we all have our own beliefs on who and how to discriminate, but we all discriminate none the less. This has nothing to do with "complete concurrence" of opinion. I was simply relaying a fact.

garbonzo, "relaying" personal beliefs and misconceptions, whether mistakenly or purposefully misconstrued as "fact" - does in no way shape or form, actually make them true solid facts!

garbonzo, in reality, they are only your own personal "notions" that you seem to have chosen to "Preach" as facts!

 

[Yazata]

Do you find stupidity immoral?

I don't equate intelligence and moral virtue.

On the other hand, there's a kind of intentional willed-stupidity that's often prevalent among otherwise intelligent people when particular topics arise. Religious and political closed-mindedness and fanaticism are often symptomatic of it. We see examples of it right here on Sciforums. I do find that morally reprehensible.

Irrational behavior / stupidity is not right behavior. It's not good behavior. So therefore it should be immoral, yes?

Logical and cognitive error certainly aren't correct, simply by definition. But are errors incorrect in a morally relevant way? I don't believe that honest mistakes are in any way evil. I don't think that any moral blame accrues when people try to think well but nevertheless reach incorrect conclusions, whether due to false or incomplete data or to misconceiving something. We all make mistakes. Many of our ideas are basically approximations anyway, error is inherent in them, so we continually try to improve our understanding and continue on.

I am well aware this isn't brought up too often, but I do think that it fits within the definition, correct?

There is a variety of contemporary epistemology that applies ethical principles to cognitive practices. It treats stuff like special-pleading, lack of impartiality or the tendency to believe that things are true because we want them to be true as moral defects that arise in cognition.

I'm just wondering if people agree with me here because I mentioned it to a buddy of mine and he said "most people would disagree with you on that".

I agree with your friend if the assertion is that people who are less intelligent than ourselves are morally inferior people. That's false in my experience. Moral virtue and intelligence seem to be largely independent variables.

But I'm more inclined to agree that it's an occasion for something like moral criticism and blame, when people willfully introduce distortions and error into their thinking in order to advance their own desires.

That's certainly not the last word. Problem cases arise when we start thinking about stuff like unconscious motivations and implicit cultural assumptions.

 

[C C]

I'm just wondering if people agree with me here because I mentioned it to a buddy of mine and he said "most people would disagree with you on that".

"Stupidity" might have even been the basic gist of the postmodernism movement. A concept which I feel really boiled down to a returning to what both our human social affairs and the world seemed like prior to all the products which intellect, over many centuries, had elaborated into our original raw experiences (complex formal doctrines and details worked into our naive, primal beginnings). That is, "stupidity" as a kind of reception of perceptual content without institutionalized interpretations and understandings of it guiding our reactions (which Foucault apparently even deemed the commonsense conventions of any particular culture to be a forerunner of / precursor to).

Mark Goldblatt: Another notable postmodernist who, presumably, would be untroubled by the charge of nonsense is Michel Foucault--who invokes a "new metaphysical ellipse". But what exactly is this new metaphysics? According to Foucault, it is the metaphysics of the "phantasm" behind which "it is useless to seek a more substantial truth". Common sense is the enemy for Foucault because it carries "the tyranny of goodwill, the obligation to think 'in common' with others, the domination of a pedagogical model, and most importantly--the exclusion of stupidity". Because a metaphysics based on common sense and goodwill--in other words, a humanist metaphysics--excludes stupidity, Foucault argues, "we must liberate ourselves from these constraints; and in perverting this morality, philosophy itself is disoriented". [...] This strikes me as rather close to a working definition of postmodern argumentation.
--Can Humanists Talk to Postmodernists?; ducts.org - Issue 17, Summer 2006​

At any rate, an influence upon public opinion that would now be in the decline, if the obits and funebrial obloquies about PoMo carry credibility:

The Death Of Postmodernism And Beyond

http://philosophynow.org/issues/42/How_to_Get_Real

 

[garbonzo]

I think the inference of the OP is immoral.

That's pretty funny because it then follows that you agree with my OP because you think it's stupid. Stupidity = immoral.

It's a paradoxical concept, but it's pretty funny.

 

[garbonzo]

garbonzo, you are not "...relaying a fact of human behavior..." that is indicative of all human beings - though possibly they may be indicative of your own personal behavior.
Hence, your statement may be relaying a fact of garbonzo's behavior. That does not make it true for "all" human behavior.
Ergo...me, or anyone else for that matter, not believing it - has everything to do with you.

NO. This is a fact, look it up, I am not your Google machine. This is a fact known by almost every, if not every academic in our modern world. I am not relaying my behavior, I am relaying what we have proven to be true. I said it 1000 times before, I'll say it again LOOK IT UP. I am not dealing with your ignorance any longer.

garbonzo, it seems that your own perceptions are severely inadequate at detecting the "obvious". Another "notion" that your seeming "inadequacy of perception" will allow you to "soundly reject" also!

You are truly living up to your username, or perhaps you are a massive troll. I'm stating something as obvious as the sun setting and rising. Stop, just stop. You are either a troll or a 13 year old. What is wrong with you, seriously?

garbonzo, my own personal "sexual preference" is a judgment that I have made - of myself, upon myself - not a judgment of others.

You didn't even counter the other examples, very conveniently. A troll. You are judging others when you reject someone out of sexual compatibility. This is fucking common sense. Seriously, a troll. I'm not getting worked up over you after this post. Have you never rejected someone when they show interest in you? Seriously.

garbonzo, you are not "having" a "discussion" - you are "preaching your own personal beliefs"!
You seem to believe those to be "The Only True Facts in Existence"!
You then, seem to have decided that anything not in full concurrence with "your own personal beliefs" is simply a "notion" with no credence, that again, you seem to deign only worthy of being "soundly reject(ed)" and cast aside.

garbonzo, that is not discussing anything - that is just exhibiting seemingly disgusting behavior.

The only behavior that is disgusting here is you!

garbonzo, "relaying" personal beliefs and misconceptions, whether mistakenly or purposefully misconstrued as "fact" - does in no way shape or form, actually make them true solid facts!

garbonzo, in reality, they are only your own personal "notions" that you seem to have chosen to "Preach" as facts!

I'm not misconstruing them. Next you're going to say I am misconstruing facts when I say humans have emotions!

 

[garbonzo]

I don't equate intelligence and moral virtue.

On the other hand, there's a kind of intentional willed-stupidity that's often prevalent among otherwise intelligent people when particular topics arise. Religious and political closed-mindedness and fanaticism are often symptomatic of it. We see examples of it right here on Sciforums. I do find that morally reprehensible.



Logical and cognitive error certainly aren't correct, simply by definition. But are errors incorrect in a morally relevant way? I don't believe that honest mistakes are in any way evil. I don't think that any moral blame accrues when people try to think well but nevertheless reach incorrect conclusions, whether due to false or incomplete data or to misconceiving something. We all make mistakes. Many of our ideas are basically approximations anyway, error is inherent in them, so we continually try to improve our understanding and continue on.



There is a variety of contemporary epistemology that applies ethical principles to cognitive practices. It treats stuff like special-pleading, lack of impartiality or the tendency to believe that things are true because we want them to be true as moral defects that arise in cognition.



I agree with your friend if the assertion is that people who are less intelligent than ourselves are morally inferior people. That's false in my experience. Moral virtue and intelligence seem to be largely independent variables.

But I'm more inclined to agree that it's an occasion for something like moral criticism and blame, when people willfully introduce distortions and error into their thinking in order to advance their own desires.

That's certainly not the last word. Problem cases arise when we start thinking about stuff like unconscious motivations and implicit cultural assumptions.

Hi Yazata. Have you read the thread? Because I've talked about a lot of this stuff to a tee earlier in the thread.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

NO. This is a fact, look it up, I am not your Google machine. This is a fact known by almost every, if not every academic in our modern world. I am not relaying my behavior, I am relaying what we have proven to be true. I said it 1000 times before, I'll say it again LOOK IT UP. I am not dealing with your ignorance any longer.





You are truly living up to your username, or perhaps you are a massive troll. I'm stating something as obvious as the sun setting and rising. Stop, just stop. You are either a troll or a 13 year old. What is wrong with you, seriously?



You didn't even counter the other examples, very conveniently. A troll. You are judging others when you reject someone out of sexual compatibility. This is fucking common sense. Seriously, a troll. I'm not getting worked up over you after this post. Have you never rejected someone when they show interest in you? Seriously.



The only behavior that is disgusting here is you!




I'm not misconstruing them. Next you're going to say I am misconstruing facts when I say humans have emotions!

Meh!!!

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ͡°)]

Irrational behavior / stupidity is not right behavior. It's not good behavior. So therefore it should be immoral, yes? I am well aware this isn't brought up too often, but I do think that it fits within the definition, correct?

I'm just wondering if people agree with me here because I mentioned it to a buddy of mine and he said "most people would disagree with you on that".

1.) There is no objective way to measure stupidity.

2.) Morality is not objective.

And not only are your assumptions unproved, but your logic with those assumptions is not made clear.

 

[garbonzo]

1.) There is no objective way to measure stupidity.

2.) Morality is not objective.

And not only are your assumptions unproved, but your logic with those assumptions is not made clear.

I'm going to say to you as I've said to Yazata. Have you read the thread? Because I've talked about a lot of this stuff to a tee earlier in the thread.

 

[garbonzo]

Meh!!!

Yeah, that's what you say when you know you were being a dumbass. Just search Google for "we all discriminate" and you'll find countless articles on the subject. Here's just one:

http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/10112

 

[billvon]

That's where you and me disagree. I don't think watching soap operas are stupid

The subject matter itself is stupid (i.e. depicts people of low intelligence having problems that more intelligent people could easily solve.) Watching them confers no tangible benefit and in fact wastes time that could otherwise be used in more useful pursuits. It is stupid. That does mean that it is immoral.

I know people who have went to prestigious colleges that tape every episode of "The Young and the Restless".

Right - and I know people who have PhD's who drink so much they pass out. That's stupid too - but not immoral.

People who do rain dances, even though there is no proof to show that they work, are just wrong. They are doing things wrong. Do you or don't you agree?

They are wrong; thinking rain dances work is stupid. Rain dances are not immoral. That's another example of stupid things that are not immoral.

That is entirely different than soap operas because that is just entertainment

And dancing isn't?

and if people are entertained by it, then who are you to say it is somehow different than what you enjoy as entertainment?

Ding! Ding! You are correct! If you're not hurting anyone else with your rain dance/soaps/pet rocks/collecting stamps/misspelled tattos/drinking/smoking then knock yourself out. Those things may be stupid but they are not immoral.

I believe you aren't really thinking thoroughly on this subject, honestly. You are speaking out of instinct, or being off-handed about this. Why don't you try to give another example that you think is stupid behavior, but not wrong behavior?

Drinking more than two drinks at one sitting. Unprotected rock climbing. Being on a reality TV show. Arguing with a fundamentalist.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Yeah, that's what you say when you know you were being a dumbass. Just search Google for "we all discriminate" and you'll find countless articles on the subject. Here's just one:

http://umanitoba.ca/outreach/evidencenetwork/archives/10112

Meh!!!

 

[garbonzo]

The subject matter itself is stupid (i.e. depicts people of low intelligence having problems that more intelligent people could easily solve.)

But the same can be said about a lot of fictional media, such as The Walking Dead or Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones.

Watching them confers no tangible benefit and in fact wastes time that could otherwise be used in more useful pursuits.

The same can be said about a lot of entertainment. Video games, any sort of TV, movie theaters, plays, you name it. This isn't stupid. You cannot construe soap operas as being stupid objectively.

Right - and I know people who have PhD's who drink so much they pass out. That's stupid too - but not immoral.

Why is it not immoral? Do you believe this is right behavior? If not, it is by definition, immoral.

They are wrong; thinking rain dances work is stupid. Rain dances are not immoral. That's another example of stupid things that are not immoral.

Why is it not immoral? Do you believe this is right behavior? If not, it is by definition, immoral.

And dancing isn't?

Not when you're irrationally thinking it will bring rain! How could you even construe it this way disingenuously?

Ding! Ding! You are correct! If you're not hurting anyone else with your rain dance/soaps/pet rocks/collecting stamps/misspelled tattos/drinking/smoking then knock yourself out. Those things may be stupid but they are not immoral.

Why is it not immoral? Do you believe this is right behavior? If not, it is by definition, immoral.

Drinking more than two drinks at one sitting. Unprotected rock climbing.

Agreed. But I believe these to be immoral also.

Being on a reality TV show. Arguing with a fundamentalist.

This isn't stupid, it's just entertainment. And being on a reality show can not only be fun, but earn you tons of cash! How is that stupid?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@garbonzo - quote "Why is it not immoral? Do you believe this is right behavior? If not, it is by definition, immoral." unquote -

Where in this definition does it state that if something is not "right behavior" that "it is by definition, immoral"?

definition of "immoral" from : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral


im·mor·al adjective \(ˌ)i(m)-ˈmȯr-əl, -ˈmär-\

: not morally good or right : morally evil or wrong



Full Definition of IMMORAL
: not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles
— im·mor·al·ly adverb

Examples of IMMORAL
Don't condemn her: there was nothing immoral about what she did.
It was immoral of her to tell lies like that.
First Known Use of IMMORAL
1660
Related to IMMORAL
Synonyms
black, dark, evil, bad, iniquitous, nefarious, rotten, sinful, unethical, unlawful, unrighteous, unsavory, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked, wrong
Antonyms
decent, ethical, good, honest, honorable, just, moral, right, righteous, sublime, upright, virtuous
Related Words
base, contemptible, despicable, dirty, disreputable, evil-minded, ignoble, ill, infernal, low, mean, snide, sordid; atrocious, cruel, infamous, nasty; blamable, blameworthy, censurable, objectionable, obscene, offensive, reprehensible; corrupt, debased, debauched, degenerate, depraved, dissolute, libertine, loose, low-minded, perverted, reprobate, scrofulous, sick, unhealthy; cursed (also curst), cussed, defiling, noxious, pernicious, pestilential, ugly, ungodly, unwholesome; banned, barred, condemned, discouraged, forbidden, illegal, interdicted, outlawed, prohibited, proscribed, unauthorized, unclean; disallowed; execrable, lousy, miserable, wretched; errant, erring, fallen, unprincipled, unscrupulous; improper, incorrect, indecent, indecorous, naughty, unbecoming, unseemly, vulgar; dishonest, dishonorable
Near Antonyms
elevated, high, high-minded, law-abiding, legitimate, lofty, noble, principled, reputable, scrupulous; allowed, authorized, legal, licensed, permissible, permitted; approved, endorsed (also indorsed), sanctioned; abetted, encouraged, promoted, supported; clean, correct, decent, decorous, exemplary, proper, seemly; blameless, commendable, creditable, guiltless, legitimate; chaste, immaculate, incorruptible, innocent, inoffensive, irreproachable, lily-white, perfect, pure, spotless, squeaky-clean, uncorrupted, unerring, unfallen, unobjectionable, venerable, white, wholesome; esteemed, respected, upstanding, worthy

 

[billvon]

But the same can be said about a lot of fictional media, such as The Walking Dead or Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones.

Exactly.

Do you believe this is right behavior? If not, it is by definition, immoral.

Watching soaps is not "right behavior." It has no utility. It is a waste of time. It leads to sedentary behavior which in turn leads to heart disease, obesity etc. However, it is not immoral.

But I believe these to be immoral also.

Unprotected rock climbing is immoral due to the risk? How about biking? The risk of riding a bicycle on the street is arguably higher risk than rock climbing. Is that immoral?

This isn't stupid, it's just entertainment.

By your definition, it if is not right, it is immoral. And arguing with a fundamentalist is certainly not "right."