Improving Yedda: http://yedda.com/questions/Improving_Yedda_1869149124114
Is there a correlation between ethical (moral) behaviour and intelligence?
Love is the battery of life....
Hi Drabsv,How are you ? Prof. Haward gardner defined 10 different "intelligences" (please read his theory, vey smart and interesting ! I highly recommend). Each one of us is a mix of those 10 intelligences. I believe that high "inter-relation intelligence" leads to ethical behavior..... other than that I don't see any correlation..... Sure one can be very intelligent and a criminal..... Best regards,
First, let's separate morality from ethics because while related they are not the same. Morality (from mores) is an accepted way of behaving in a society while ethics are a reasoned position based on understanding of differing positions taken on a ideas within that society. So to be an ethical person one has to be knowledgeable about how and why differing positions are taken on any one subject whereas morality merely has you following the conduct of your particular society. For example, the position on abortion is seen differently by most Catholics and most Jews. Why? because the ethics of that idea are based on different interpretations of scripture. While Judaism places more value on the life of the mother, the Catholic viewpoint places more value on the life of the infant. If you are moral, you follow the viewpoint of your faith as the correct ethics of that position. To do that you must be an educated person which is NOT the same as intelligence. Morality and ethical behavior are NOT based on intellectual capabilities per se but on the ability to use intellect for reasoned behavior. Maddoff was certainly intelligent but not ethical!
The search for people who can answer your question continues for as long as needed - until you find the answer you were looking for.
When an answer is posted by someone who was invited (byYedda or by yourself) to answer your question, their answer is marked with a yellow "invited by Yedda".
To be invited to answer other people's questions in your areas of knowledge and interest, be sure to list your favorite topics:
» My Settings › My Topics.
Of course, the more helpful your answers are, the more likely you are to be invited to future questions...
It is easy to talk the talk. Now it's time to walk the walk.
Drabsv, morality is an emotional code of conduct, that is necessarily subjective, personal, and subject to change as the occasion depends.
Ethics is an agreed code of duty where certain professions must do certain things and no professional engaged in that profession may do other things. To violate one's duty is a civil complaint with a criminal threshold. To fail at one's ethical duty is a civil complaint with a criminal threshold called negligence. To abuse one's profession to cause another to suffer wrongfully but not profit from it is a tort of malfeasance. To wrong another by abusing one's profession and gain from that wrongful act (or failure to act properly) is a criminal tort of misfeasance.
Tort law is a legal nightmare, and yes, if you so injure another person so that they have suffered such an indecency that no decent person would tolerate it, is a tort of outrage.
Where morality is a general set of rules ("Thou shalt not commit adultery . . ..) ethics is a specified and binding legal code that governs a profession. Look it up in Black's Law Dictionary for a little more detailed dissertation.
www.blacks.com/ethics.html
Hello OronD.
Basically, your point about interrelational intelligence pertains to some moral capacity, but not necessarily enough for a good understanding of real morality. For that there would probably have to be some capacity to be more general in ones morality than should it pertain only to the specific persons that one has a relationship with (or even that are into just any relationships that one has, in turn, some reason to relate to). I.e. there should be a possibility a general neutrality.
Capacity for a general neutrality, I believe, is what religions have coined "the soul". It should thus be pertinent to (at least a searh for) context- and time-independent positive value. What is defined as being so highly regarded as neutral, I believe, is different according to personal and/or religious opions.
Got an answer for drabsv? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them
