It's entropy – in nature there are more ways to break or misuse things than to make or properly use things. Look at the fossil record: maladaptations are far and away easier, and thereby more frequent, than adaptations. 'Intelligence misused and resulting in maladaptive behaviors and malpractices' is my working definition for stupidity. As they say, 'the gods themselves struggle in vain against their own stupidity even as they punish us for our own'. The inertia of countless paths of least cognitive effort is inexorable (i.e. meta/cognition is calorically very expensive while reflex and intuition are very cheap). We're just barely intelligent enough to self-correct (some of) our misuses of intelligence – much of the time, not always, and not once and for all. Human buffoonery is our Sisyphusian boulder. Thus, the intellect struggles in vain – amor fati. :sweat:

I like that.

My point is that intellect and morality are not intrinsically linked.

The misuse of high IQ for example has produced some of the US most prolific serial killers.

Serial killing is not "misuse of high IQ"; that's psychpathy (or antisocial sociopathy).

My point is that intellect and morality are not intrinsically linked. — Deus

It's worse. Interject is an amplifier of evil.

I define evil as seeking ones own benefit at the expense of others. Evil is a constant, but Intellect amplifies it's power. Worse, with technological sharing it enables the evil of the led intelligent. The ingenuity of the gun enables the killer to murder in mass. The ingenuity of nuclear weapons enables a wounded narcissist like Putin to murder a country or the planet.

A trait that channeled correctly can produce a half decent CEO. Still doesn’t answer the question of how things can be improved as a psycho CEO obviously wouldn’t give a damn about the damage he does to the environment as long as he keeps his shareholders, his job and income healthy.

Serial killing is not "misuse of high IQ"; that's psychpathy (or antisocial sociopathy). — 180 Proof

:up:

Then, please elaborate on a soldier who does the same on a battlefield to the typical serial killer.

Make sure to includes things like obligation to the government he serves etc.

↪Deus Serial killing is not "misuse of high IQ"; that's psychpathy (or antisocial sociopathy) — 180 Proof

Nice label, but is there really any coherence in its definition other than people doing things that seem to be in severe violation of social norms? It seems mainly to serve as rationalization of the assumption that there is such a thing as an objectively determinable definition of suffering. See , there must be because of the existence of individuals who are allegedly constitutionally incapable of empathizing with others suffering.

Is this unequivocal balance of good and bad an inherent human trait or is something that can be tackled towards higher human ideals? — Deus

If we could neutralize greed, then we can start looking towards higher human ideals. Until then, it's a fight to the bitter end.

Good point. It is greed that is one of the big factors of the rationalised and unrationised aspects of ego.

Primitive in its form and found in almost every animal it’s of course holds the species back but also keeps it in check as self/preservation is the fear of perishing which stops the next madman with trigger fingers from blasting our whole progress back to square one.

Good point. It is greed that is one of the big factors of the rationalised and unrationised aspects of ego — Deus

Unless of course labels like ‘greed’ are our attempts to blame others for our failure to understand situations that seem justified from the ‘greedy’ one’s vantage.

Unless of course labels like ‘greed’ are our attempts to blame others for our failure to understand situations that seem justified from the ‘greedy’ one’s vantage. — Joshs

And an example of this is...what?

Conquest, the transfer of values through empire building and wars served us well but with nuclear weapons at our disposal we certainly need to evolve.

Or collectively perish.

My point is that intellect and morality are not intrinsically linked.

The misuse of high IQ for example has produced some of the US most prolific serial killers. — Deus

I.Q. is not the measure of social intelligence you need in order to see the correlation between what we call
morality and intellectual development. Ever notice how so many of the practices we label immoral are associated with older, traditionalistic cultures?

You ask rhetorical questions without giving hints as to what I should be contemplating here.

And an example of this is...what? — L'éléphant

I would argue that every time you use the word ‘greed’ to describe another you are failing to see how they legitimately justify their actions based on their perspective and personal history. For instance, ‘greedy’ CEO’s see the world through the value of what they produce. It is what they know best and that biases them in favor of rewarding themselves and building an ever more powerful empire that seems to them to be a gift to mankind. ‘Greed’ is really a kind of tunnel vision

You have to understand that greedy individuals do not try to hide the fact. Arrogance comes with greed. Love of power and wealth with no cap is displayed amongst them. It is understood. But for good PR, of course, they're going to say they're building communities and wealth for everybody.

You ask rhetorical questions without giving hints as to what I should be contemplating here — Deus

You should be contemplating the correlation between level of cultural development and what we call ‘morality’.Cultural development brings with it greater insights into how others unlike ourselves see the world , and this allows us to engage with them in ways that are less violent, hostile and punitive. In other words , in more ‘moral’ ways. Once we have achieved a certain level of development , we turn around and accuse others who haven’t arrived there yet of being ‘immoral,

Many serial killers grow up in home environments very different from our own , and this can produce a kind of social intelligence that has profound gaps.

Joshs You have to understand that greedy individuals do not try to hide the fact. Arrogance comes with greed. Love of power and wealth with no cap is displayed amongst them. It is understood. But for good PR, of course, they're going to say they're building communities and wealth for everybody. — L'éléphant

Some have extolled the message that greed is good. What they mean by that is the ability to accumulate wealth is associated with creativity and innovation that benefits society. They are praising the productive powers of self-interest and would insist that this is the only reliable way to produce wealth that makes its way to an entire nation. I don’t personally support this neo-liberal view, but they believe it is an eminently moral position rather than a form of destructive selfishness.

Some have extolled the message that greed is good. — Joshs

You're watching too much movies.

The fact that someone gets rich does not inhibit the poor guy from getting rich. Where it often can go wrong is that the rich guy makes the poor guy depend on him for certain goods, services or needs.

The fact that someone gets rich does not inhibit the poor guy from getting rich. Where it often can go wrong is that the rich guy makes the poor guy depend on him for certain goods, services or needs. — Deus

An example of that is monopoly, which is still very much alive today but hidden behind, for example, exclusive contracts and technological "obsolescence".

would argue that every time you use the word ‘greed’ to describe another you are failing to see how they legitimately justify their actions based on their perspective and personal history. — Joshs

There are few who view themselves as explicitly immoral. There is always a way to rationalize. But this fact does not impact the legitimacy of our own judgements of them.

The current strategy I am trying is asking myself
"Is this worth suffering for?" to make less horrible decisions.

Suffering will happen no matter what choices are made.
And if something is not worth suffering over, it's not of much worth to an individual.

We all suffer, but if we suffer over something worthy, the suffering doesn't have to be for nothing.

Perhaps you meant to post your ideas here
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13531/the-purpose-of-suffering

But since you’re here anyway let me address your point, if the cause is seen as noble and worth suffering for then why not?

There are few who view themselves as explicitly immoral. There is always a way to rationalize. But this fact does not impact the legitimacy of our own judgements of them. — hypericin

The legitimacy of our own judgments goes only as far as the normative framework we buy into, within which the others actions appear immoral. But such normative
frameworks specify a certain way of interpreting the meaning of situations( the so-called objective facts), and do not take into account that the facts may appear very different from a different normative interpretive framework . This is because for many moral systems there is assumed to be only one meta-normative framework. As a result , we end up assuming that the other understands the facts just as we do , and it is their intent that is to blame. We say they ‘rationalize’ to themselves or to us, which is another way of saying they know what they do and why they do it , and they are lying about this. By confusing ‘immoral’ intent with a different interpretive understanding of the world, we justify our condemnation , punishment and even violence against them, but we never succeed in understanding how differently their world looked to them than to us.

I find this normative interpretive framework notion an interesting and useful way of looking at the issue. It certainly assists in making sense of what we often assume to be ill will.

This is because for many moral systems there is assumed to be only one meta-normative framework. As a result , we end up assuming that the other understands the facts just as we do , and it is their intent that is to blame. — Joshs

I think this is a helpful insight.

I don't see your point.

You've lost me.

By confusing ‘immoral’ intent with a different interpretive understanding of the world, we justify our condemnation , punishment and even violence against them, but we never succeed in understanding how differently their world looked to them than to us. — Joshs

Mon dieu!
We are not confused here. The attribute of greed can be very much understood by the smallest to the biggest individual. I'm leaving out the small-time greedy -- unfair cutting of cake so that one gets a bigger piece than the other. That's boring. I'm talking about those in power, whether in an organization or the whole country.

Greed is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's really not that hard.