Doubting Didymus

You are confusing logic with intelligence and cunning. Its not the same thing.

As a matter of fact I happen to agree with you here, but it is human intelligence, not logic, that should be in your example. That is why I cannot agree that human stupidity is our major flaw. Most truly atrocious humans in history have been quite cluey, and would probably have been less problematic if they were MORE, not less stupid. Case studies: Hussein and Hitler.

Many people on this thread are making the same mistake. Logic is not the same thing as cunning, wit, or intelligence. It is a set of univeral rules in the same way as maths, meaning it is objective, the same for all humans.

As for your above example, since persons A and B are in a theoretical isolated environment where the only food in existance belongs to person B, there may be no moral way to solve the problem. However if there WAS a moral solution I am confident that logic could find it, while there are no guarantees that intelligence or emotions could do the same.

I think we may have diverged from the topic, so I am going to start a new thread. Please respond to this post in the thread 'Logic, morals and objectivity'.

echidna

That is the whole point. Once one has a strong set of beliefs or desires (be they moral OR immoral), one will use every ounce of logic to justify them. Surely history has provided enough examples. One doesn’t generate base morality from logic. Coincidence alone that the most logical nation of all is the one synonymous with the worst form of racism ?

What do you mean by a moral code that isn’t true ?
Are you suggesting moral objectivism ?

Well racism is actually far more logically beneficial than racial acceptance. Given one’s primary loyalty is towards one’s family, I can best look after them by persecuting & eradicating competition. The grounds for the hatred which you need to generate might be ethnic, racial, religious, economic or whatever.

The Protestant planting of Ireland, the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia, the Anglo Saxon invasion of England, Hutus & Tutsis, you name it. Hey, how did white Australia logically suffer by persecuting Aborigines 200 years ago for that matter ? Time and time again, its incredible success alone has been the quite sufficient reason for genocide and bigotry. And being quite logical, sadly it is also eminently successful. It’s also more than likely to be the reason homo sapiens survives today. Illogical ? Not at all.

The only logical mistake the Third Reich made was militarily engaging Stalin (and that was just Hitler’s authoritarianism rather than his generals. Without that maybe Europe today might be quite different. Immoral regimes are quite sustainable over long periods of time – witness apartheid, communism.

I hope you’re not suggesting that logical people are more moral than illogical people. An intelligent immoral person is far more capable of using their intelligence to generate far more atrocity than one less intelligent. And in a sense the “evil” is magnified because it is done with full consciousness, consideration and premeditation. “Cold-blooded” is the adjective for immorality committed by intelligence. Irrational violence concerns me little. Logical violence is where our problems lie. And please don’t say that violence is illogical.

I see little if any correlation between intelligence & morality.

Don’t ever underestimate these people by simply calling them stupid. This is the easiest way of dismissing the real problem as though it wasn’t there.

I don’t regard logic as being worthless, but I’d be teaching it second after morality.

mibby529

Scapegoating. Definitely scapegoating.

Autonemesis

Without a doubt, I nominate Hubris.

emphryio

The greatest flaw of humanity is that "less intelligent" people are much more interested in obtaining power. (Unless that statement isn't true, but I believe it is.)

Also I agree with Friar Bellows that assimilating/conforming far more than needed is a good one. (Actually I wonder if the societies where this is less true seem to always produce/perform better? More eccentrics equals what for society?)

Self deception is good also, but plain old dishonesty to others is only a result of other flaws.

And Echidna, if you're saying that racism is logical, shouldn't that mean you're a racist?
Or do you purposely just ignore the obvious conclusion (that you make it sound as if you have apparently reached) because it is politically incorrect?

The third possibility is that despite your devil's advocation of racism here, you actually have more logic on the issue you didn't share here. And that unshared logic has actually made you against racism. The reason you didn't include this "logic" could be because you don't quite completely understand what is meant by the term, "logic".

So either:
1. You are a racist.
2. You ignore your logic if it means a politically incorrect conclusion.
3. You're wrong concerning logic. Doubting Didymus is right.

I agree with Doubting Didymus concerning logic. But I wouldn't give a lack of logic as a flaw because I consider it a truism. (Like runners could have faster times if only they could run faster.)

The Resistance

The lack of critical thought. You got to admit, it's not a natural ability of most humans.

Perchance

I think it might depend on what you mean by "perform better."

I've read accounts of societies with collectivist traditions (for example, some Asian countries) outperforming America on international tests. The studies always seem to take for granted that the collectivist tradition is part of what influences the high test scores.

Of course, one could argue that the collectivist tradition also has a price- limiting the freedom of the individual- and so that individually perhaps people from a collectivist tradition aren't as free in certain things as people raised with the notion that conforming is a bad idea.

On the other hand, I don't know if you could count the U.S. as a place where children are taught that conforming is a bad idea. There are certain ideals of freedom and independence, but who knows how well they're actually met?

-Perchance.

philechat

First of all, collectivistic societies were developed after the agricultural revolution. Hunting-gathering societies stresses initiative and independence in a much greater extent than farming societies, because farming societies demands a stability of production, while hunting and gatherings depends on people who can find new fertile territories (for new games).

Farming society is the most conservative and change-resistent society, because it demands a great division of labor and a steady supply of crops. Before the invention of machines, people with too great an independence would harm the overall production. And thus individuals were punished if they did not conform.

Societies are also more collectivistic when there are less multi-cultural interactions. Again innovation is punished because it threatens the well-being of the society, while in diverse societies innovative problem-solving are essential for a culture's survival (unless a culture deliberately isolates themselves in seperate regions under protection of the dominant culture, like the Amish).

The advantage of individualistic society would be its openness and adaptibility to other cultures and innovations. Collectivistic societies have the benefit of stability, though it might be completely vulnerable to foreign influences (modern China for example).

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

One of the last sane

The capacity, more marked in some individuals than others, for drawing conclusions based on values rather than logic.

echidna

And what type of cultural generalisation might this be ?