Heredity, IQ, and Race: Moral implications

[lak611]

Exactly. And there is great value in these occupations that are regarded as lowly and/or menial.

Furthermore, there is more to value in a person than what he can accomplish in comparison to worldly measures of success.

I agree.

 

[lak611]

I have taken the Stanford Binet test and the PSAT (back when it was still an aptitude test, not an achievement test). If I wished to join Mensa, I would be eligible to be a member based on my scores on those tests. My employment situation has not been good for the past several years, and I am currently unemployed. At this point, I am considering the possibility of going back to school. Granted, I will probably succeed in any future academic endeavours, since I have always been a high achiever academically. However, just the fact that I am intelligent has not translated into economic success.

 

[little]

You wouldn’t know a diamond
If you held it in your hand
The things you think are precious
I can’t understand

You been tellin’ me you’re a genius
Since you were seventeen
In all the time I’ve known you
I still don’t know what you mean

The things you think are useless
I can’t understand

credit: Steely Dan - REELIN’ IN THE YEARS

**livehard, workhard, lovehard **- true genius

 

[ribozyme]

:yup:

Thank God ribozyme’s ideals are still fiction!

Nope, those are not my ideas, I should give credit to Richard Lynn. His ideas are presented in Eugenics: A Reassessment.

I

 

[timotheos]

How do we increase intelligence without eugenics? And how do we concomitantly respect “human dignity”?

From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. -Luke 12:48

Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’ His master said to him in reply, 'You wicked, lazy servant! ’ -Mt 25:24-26

Actually ribozyme, we are all created equal in dignity. The fact that we are not all created biologically equal has created much angst in our well-meaning secular society. Various politically-correct strategies for equalizing these disparities in, say, education or the workplace setting, have been implemented, the results of which you can evaluate for yourself, but in my opinion have been less than that hoped for.

You could potentially shift the bell curve, but it still remains a bell curve, with a left “tail”. I don’t believe you can eliminate the tail in the physical world. It could be unnerving, facing the reality of this tail. Perhaps you could feel guilty about how you feel toward people in this “tail”. Or maybe you could be in the “tail” and don’t believe there is any reason or purpose for your being there, other than “poor” genes. These “problems” can’t be solved by mankind. But God doesn’t make mistakes, and the answers are in Him alone.

High intelligence is not an unrestricted blessing, and not without its hazards (I heard somewhere that people who suffer from depression tend to have a higher IQ). Those who naturally have a lot of “smarts” must carry the burden (yes, burden) for developing and using them responsibly, for the good of all mankind and God’s creation.

Tim

 

[ricmat]

Ribozyme- Although IQ might have something to do with the passing things of this world, so far as I know, it has nothing to do with the salvation of your immortal soul.

So, don’t worry about it

 

[JimG]

As LapsedAtheist mentioned, heighth is hereditary. There have been studies which show that tall people have an advantage in obtaining higher paying jobs. (And not just in basketball.) Shorter people are disadvantaged in respect to employment opportunities. Do you also wish to fix that?

 

[ribozyme]

Actually ribozyme, we are all created equal in dignity. The fact that we are not all created biologically equal has created much angst in our well-meaning secular society. Various politically-correct strategies for equalizing these disparities in, say, education or the workplace setting, have been implemented, the results of which you can evaluate for yourself, but in my opinion have been less than that hoped for.

You could potentially shift the bell curve, but it still remains a bell curve, with a left “tail”. I don’t believe you can eliminate the tail in the physical world. It could be unnerving, facing the reality of this tail. Perhaps you could feel guilty about how you feel toward people in this “tail”. Or maybe you could be in the “tail” and don’t believe there is any reason or purpose for your being there, other than “poor” genes. These “problems” can’t be solved by mankind. But God doesn’t make mistakes, and the answers are in Him alone.

High intelligence is not an unrestricted blessing, and not without its hazards (I heard somewhere that people who suffer from depression tend to have a higher IQ). Those who naturally have a lot of “smarts” must carry the burden (yes, burden) for developing and using them responsibly, for the good of all mankind and God’s creation.

Tim

I do feel guilty when I do look think about those who are below the population mean…

I do not think I can help them (and their future children) in an effective way and this leaves me with a feeling of dejection. IQ is a symbol of despair and hopelessness when we consider the predicament of the unfortunate. Recourse to education and environmental intervention will be futile because of intelligence determined by heredity.

I do not advocate any available method that could ameliorate this (they do not provide significant increases nor do I consider them ethical), but perhaps research into human genetics and biotechnology will be fecund (I deem embryo selection extremely promising although one might argue that it does not acknowledge inherent human dignity). This is a problem that future generations will need to solve in an effective and ethical manner.

I am acquainted with some of the burdens of high intelligence as my introspective and inquisitive nature alienates me from my peers, but I do think this is a rather pithy response from John Stuart Mill:

Now it is an unquestionable fact that those who are equally acquainted with, and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying, both, do give a most marked preference to the manner of existence which employs their higher faculties. Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast’s pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs. They would not resign what they possess more than he for the most complete satisfaction of all the desires which they have in common with him…

A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering, and certainly accessible to it at more points, than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence. We may give what explanation we please of this unwillingness;… but its most appropriate appellation is a sense of dignity, which all human beings possess in one form or other, and in some, though by no means in exact, proportion to their higher faculties, and which is so essential a part of the happiness of those in whom it is strong, that nothing which conflicts with it could be, otherwise than momentarily, an object of desire to them.
**
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.** And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.

utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm