“Do you think a superior intellect is more likely to be moral? Why or why not?”-

–“Do you think a superior intellect is more likely to be moral? Why or why not?”–
My work suggests that superior intellect (a) provides a means of avoiding errors and their consequences, and (b) discovers scarcer opportunities less easily seized. (c) as such less need for seizing immoral opportunities OR the capacity to seize immoral opportunities and not be caught by them.

In my experience in the political, legal, and financial sectors (not so much business sectors), I have been horrified by the permissible and often institutional immorality that is practiced and even advocated for daily because of the lack of VISIBILITY into the actions taken, and or the pretense of neutrality created by artifice.

Virtue is a product of and mass produced by the upper working, lower middle, and middle classes who must survive on direct response to customers: ie: they must survive visibility.

It’s not as if the greeks didn’t’ tell us this 2500 years ago.

Likewise, the venomous human behavior in the aristocratic courts led to protocols and manners out of self defense. These manners were adopted by the upper middle, then the middle, then much of the the lower classes reaching their peak during the victorian era.

Then the marxist-neomarxist-feminist counter-revolution incrementally destroyed them. And the shift to credentialism did the same in government, law, and finance. And the positive law movement by Rez, Kelsen, Dworkin and Rawls sought to justify it. And the inclusion of women into the voting pool insured we could not defend against it.

It’s not as if we don’t know what happend. We do. Yet we are unwilling or unable to pass the laws to reverse the trend and recapture what was universal in english common law.

Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @sbkaufman