Do you find stupidity immoral?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by garbonzo, Sep 20, 2013.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534


    Horses for courses...I see reality TV shows as a way to induce biliousness and vomiting.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    You don't know how to use a dictionary, do you? If you still don't understand, you need to research the words used to describe the first word. In the case that would be "morals". Sourc: Google, define morals:

    mor·al
    ˈmôrəl,ˈmär-/
    noun
    plural noun: morals
    1.
    a lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
    "the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
    synonyms: lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, teaching More
    2.
    a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
    "the corruption of public morals"
    synonyms: moral code, code of ethics, (moral) values, principles, standards, (sense of) morality, scruples More
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    That's subjective. Anyway, he said BEING on a reality TV show, not WATCHING. Geez.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    It may be an aspect to sedentary behavior, but it doesn't cause it directly. It can be a symptom of a different cause. The fittest people in the world I'm sure watch TV / movies. This is a ridiculous argument. Why should I even entertain this discussion any longer? It's so silly. I never knew you to be the jock type who hates all TV except the news and weather, and never enjoys a movie even once in awhile. Geez.

    Serious? I think I'm going to need to pull the burden of proof card on this one, since this is too extraordinary for me to believe. Unprotected rock climbing is less risky than riding a bicycle? I find that hard to believe. If you are correct, I'd either say both are stupid are none are stupid though, just based on the facts. I will say one thing if so, though. Maybe someone enjoys city bicycle riding so much, that he continues to do so even though he knows the risks. I wouldn't call that stupid because he knows, understands, and has considered the facts, but rationally (to his mind) considers street riding a favorable activity. This comes under what I was talking about above under entertainment and subjectivity. I could say the same for unprotected rock climbing, but the reason why I said it was stupid was because you can still enjoy rock climbing protected and have the same experience, so it wouldn't be rational then. BUT if someone maybe got an adrenaline rush from unprotected rock climbing and was willing to do it even though he considers the risks, THEN, it wouldn't be stupid, would it? Why would it be stupid? Stupid for you, but you cannot say the same for him.

    Rain dancing is different because it's stupid for you AND it's stupid for whoever does it (even if they don't know this, that doesn't negate the fact that it's true), because we are reasonably sure that nothing will come from the dance. If he ENJOYS doing it, and it's only for entertainment, then it's not stupid.

    How so? If it's for entertainment and it's not violating any other moral code, then it is considered right. If you are hoping (and think it's reasonable) to change the fundamentalist's mind, THEN you are being stupid. You are acting illogically. Not many fundamentalists change their mind from simply and internet debate, even though I did. (on this very forum)
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    And smokers have plenty of anecdotes about how they know smokers who are healthy, who lived to 110, you can smoke a little and have it have no effect etc. I am sure they are correct as well.
    But you're going to!
    ?? I don't. I watch movies on occasion. It is a waste of time. It does not make me immoral.
    I boulder (i.e. do unprotected rock climbing.) It does not make me immoral.
    I skydive and BASE jump. It does not make me immoral.
    I drink, and even on occasion drink more than two beers. It does not make me immoral.
    See the pattern here?
    Yes. Of all the things I do, riding to work on a busy secondary road is by far the activity most likely to cause my death.
    Exactly. It is right FOR HIM. Maybe it's not right for you. It does not make it immoral.
    Again, I hope you notice a pattern emerging here.
    Sorta circular argument, don't you think? Things that are right are moral, and things that do not violate a moral code are right.
    Why? I often argue with fundamentalists on boards like this one. It's entertaining, and is more educational (because I look stuff up on occasion to make a point) than watching soaps. I generally do not expect to change their minds. Why is that stupider than watching soaps?

    You seem to be defining "immoral" as "things I don't like." That's actually a pretty common definition, but one I do not agree with. My moral code includes "do whatever you want to do as long as you don't hurt anyone else or put them at risk" and "treat others as you wish to be treated." It does not include judging behavior as "immoral" if it does not meet my criteria for "good."
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    That would be even worse!
    Speaking subjectively of course.
     
  10. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,939
    Stupidity means different things to different people. In and of itself, if someone lacks common sense or a certain level of intelligence, that isn't synonymous with immorality.

    Frankly, there are many brilliant, immoral people in the world. Immorality is a condition of one's character, not a product of one's IQ.

    (Speaking in generalities; immorality is subjective in nature. What you might consider immoral, I might not. Yadda, yadda...)
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    Thank you wegs. It seems like a lot of people are equating intelligence with morality. They are not the same. A janitor with an IQ of 80 who can barely get through a day might be a very moral person; a brilliant investment banker who makes huge amounts of money for his clients (while occasionally hammering someone else) might be not very moral at all.
     
  12. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,939
    Yep. Look at the brilliant execs who masterminded the Enron scandal. Brilliance sometimes breeds arrogance.

    /thread over

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    TIL TV & movies were as addicting as cigarettes. You'd also have to prove that the percentage of people who watch TV & movies and who are obese are the same as the percentage of people who smoke and have side effects.

    Of course. It's my OP and I have to defend it at least to my fullest extent. I don't see this going anywhere though. You aren't seemingly getting it. I have to ask when was the last time you've changed your mind on a subject? You seem like a very stubborn person even under the face of clear logic.

    Yes, I see the pattern that you are listing things that are clearly not stupid! I don't understand your definitions of waste of time, but hey, that's subjective, like I said, there is no objectivity we can insert into these analogies unlike rain dancing. Why would you continue to watch movies if they are a waste of time? By saying something is a waste of time you are in effect saying it was entirely useless and you gained nothing from it. There are very few things I believe can be a waste of time. I believe you are being disingenuous by exaggerating your subjective stance here.

    Yes and for some son of a rich billionaire (perhaps), the activity most likely to cause his death is playing racquetball. What's your point? Racquetball is stupid also now? Objectivity comes into play when you look at the facts and someone going AGAINST the facts. Like rain dancing and expecting a result. Which reminds me of the famous quote:

    Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

    By this definition, insanity is illogical, stupid, and therefore immoral. I agree. I feel the need to remind you that we are talking about actions, and not people.

    I've explained this in my last comment. Stupidity can only be confirmed with reason by objectivity. We find objective stupidity by an action that flies in the face of facts.

    Meh, I was discussing my subjective morals which I consider to be mainstream. You don't have to agree, but I was nudging you in the direction. It was an alternative point, and not a main one. You are right of course, but I was trying to make a point.

    This is what I fucking said and you said it wasn't right and a waste of time! You are doing things intentionally that you just said "isn't right and a waste of time". If anyone told me this to my face I wouldn't know whether to laugh, cry, or call the guy a lunatic! (Not sure if I am conflating two arguments of yours, I remember specifically you said it "isn't right". Not sure about "a waste of time", but it's almost the same thing in my eyes. If you didn't say it, maybe you meant it? If not, just strikethrough "waste of time" from the above and you'd still have a reasonable statement.)

    Morals are subjective. But remember stupidity doesn't have to be. And since morals are subjective, you can easily say, "I consider stupidity right," and I would have no comeback! Because morals are subjective, and this is no contradiction, because if you consider something right, you, by definition, consider it moral. But once you say, "I consider stupidity wrong, but it's not immoral," you are creating an oxymoron.

    I swear I would be able to explain this easily to a 5th grader.
     
  14. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    I'm going to say to you as I've said to Yazata and that emoticon dude. Have you read the thread? Because I've talked about a lot of this stuff to a tee earlier in the thread. I'm not talking about people, so please refrain from talking about people. It muddles the debate considerably. We are talking about actions and actions only.
     
  15. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Yeah, it's all subjective, but I can still ask why you feel this way. I was a contestant on The Price Is Right and it was fun and I made some (heavily taxed) cash. What could be better?
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    Where to start?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is a "stupid" question but it's not immoral to ask it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "Stupidity" is lack of knowledge whether it's innate or simply lack of information. Immorality would imply knowing something was wrong and doing it anyway. Stupidity would imply not knowing any better therefore it doesn't involve morality per se.

    You can be brilliant and still perform immoral acts and you can be stupid and perform moral acts. It's the acts and not the intelligence (or lack thereof) behind them. No one is so stupid that they don't know that killing is wrong.

    They may stupidly be so religious that they let their child die rather than get medical treatment. That's not immoral in their mind however. Someone killing another person does know in their mind that it is immoral.

    So, stupidity in an of itself (as you are arguing) isn't immoral.
     
  17. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Yeah yeah yeah, we all know this. Talk about preaching to the choir. Did you enter the wrong thread again? Because this certainly isn't what my OP was about or what we are debating. Thanks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    I wouldn't equate low intelligence with stupidity. In fact, I'll take this a step further and denounce the term altogether: to accuse someone of being of "low intelligence" demonstrates a distasteful negation of another's integrity, for I won't be stupid enough not to assume that "low intelligence" here doesn't refer to another's completeness — by sneeringly referring to a supposed incompleteness.
     
  19. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,545
    Is Garbonzo arguing that 'wrong' in the cognitive sense, as when we answer a math problem wrong, is synonymous with 'wrong' in the moral sense, as when we say that stealing is wrong?

    If so, then I think that he is wrong. Wrong in the sense of mistaken, but not wrong in the moral sense.

    If X does Y to accomplish Z, and when that doesn't work, we can certainly say that X tried to achieve Z in the wrong way, without necessarily implying that X was morally wrong in doing it.

    A stronger negative value judgement might start to sneak in if we judge that X should have known that Y wouldn't work. And this can sometimes become a full-fledged ascription of moral wrong if somebody else suffers damages as a result of X's supposedly forseeable error. In law, negligence is a tort and a cause for civil action.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,365
    Sorry you can't discuss this rationally.

    Stupidity is not immoral. It is just stupid.
     
  21. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Sorry? I'm the one not discussing this rationally when you responded to 11 paragraphs worth of rebuttal with a simple restatement of your argument with NOTHING to back it up? That's not anywhere near what "rational" means.
     
  22. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    This is my argument. This is what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about ignorance.
     
  23. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    I'm going to say to you as I've said to Yazata, wegs, and that emoticon dude. Have you read the thread? Because I've talked about a lot of this stuff to a tee earlier in the thread. I'm not talking about people, so please refrain from talking about people. It muddles the debate considerably. We are talking about actions and actions only. I agree that accusing someone "of being of 'low intelligence'" is distasteful. That's why this isn't the argument at hand.
     

Share This Page