Some thoughts about ethics, morality, wisdom, and intelligence

[xiphias]

Some things that just sort of popped into my head this morning in the shower:

Intelligence is the ability to figure out how to do things.
Wisdom is the ability to figure out what to do.

In other words, "intelligence" lets you figure out the means, "wisdom" lets you figure out the ends.

Philosophy is a discipline which is effectively a "virtual machine" which allows you emulate wisdom using intelligence.

However, you need at least a certain amount of wisdom to "aim" the virtual machine of philosophy in order to get useful results. Without a smidgeon of wisdom, philosophy can just end up with useless wanking that doesn't actually do anything particularly useful. But, properly aimed, philosophy allows you to get much more wisdom out than just wisdom alone.

"Ethics" is related to philosophy, in that it's a "white box" in which you place a situation, apply intelligence, and you get to watch the gears crank, and out comes an answer which tells you what to do in the situation.

"Morality" is a "black box" in which you place a situation, apply wisdom, and you CAN'T see the gears crank, and out comes an answer which tells you what to do in the situation.

Because "ethics" is a "white box", and "morality" is a "black box". it's much easier for "morality" to lead people horribly wrong. You can get wrong answers out of either ethics or morality, but because you can see how "ethics" works, someone else can point out where the gears are slipping and coming out with a wrong answer. But you can't do that with morality.

Comments

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

I like the analogy. BTW, was In other words, "intelligence" lets you figure out the means, "wisdom" lets you figure out the means. supposed to have as the final words "the ends"?,

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Er. Yes. Thank you. I think I shall edit that.

[gentlescholar.livejournal.com]

That is strikingly similar to my contrast, riffing on a dictionary definition:

Intelligence is the ability to solve problems--dictionary
Wisdom is the ability to know what counts as a problem--me

I very much like your further descriptions. You might call philosophy a wisdom amplifier--you have to have some wisdom to amplify, or GIGO. Much like a computer can be an intelligence amplifier, provided you have some to feed in.

Which tangentially leads me to another definition of mine:
computer--the greatest amplifier of human error ever invented.

[red-frog.livejournal.com]

I like these analogies/definitions a lot--they work.

[navrins]

I like that.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

I like your analysis.

I would suggest you might want to delve deeper into the "wrong" decisions you speak of coming out of ethics and/or morality, as it's not clear where the definition of "wrong" (and, implicitly, "right") you're using comes from. Surely, if someone's particular morality or ethics produces an answer, that answer is right to that person, whether or not someone else would agree.

I would also wonder how conscience would fit in, as conscience is usually considered a combination of ethics and morality. Is that how you see it, or is it not quite that simple?

I don't see philosophy in quite the same way as you do. I think philosophy is more a combination of intellect and wisdom. I think one's personal philosophy is a product of analyzing one's wisdom using one's intellect, so as to be able to describe it to someone else.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I would suggest you might want to delve deeper into the "wrong" decisions you speak of coming out of ethics and/or morality, as it's not clear where the definition of "wrong" (and, implicitly, "right") you're using comes from. Surely, if someone's particular morality or ethics produces an answer, that answer is right to that person, whether or not someone else would agree.

Well, I do believe in a concept of universal, objective right and wrong -- I don't believe that right and wrong are simply personal, subjective positions. I don't believe that I personally know what is right and wrong, always, but I believe that "properly tuned" ethical and moral senses are actual reflections of something real and external, which is "universal right and wrong".

That is clearly a non-falsifiable statement, and, in my mind, isn't up for debate, not because I'd be offended to debate it or anything, but because I can't think of any grounds on which to TEST the claim.

When I think of the word "conscience", I think of an emotional reaction which tells you that an action that you are doing or considering is a wrong action. I'd think of that as a part of a moral sense: I tend to think of morals as more emotional, and ethics as more intellectual. Those are hardly universal definitions, of course, nor is what I think of when I think of "conscience" necessarily what you think of.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

I realize that it's, as you say, not debatable, but I'm curious about the "universal right and wrong" you posit. Would that be essentially equivalent to some sort of divine will, to your mind? Because I can't quite see from where, if not, this universal concept would originate.

What's generally thought of as right and wrong is as I'm sure you know often very different in different cultures, and it changes over time. Even in different segments of the same culture, different people have pretty radically different thoughts about very fundamental subjects. You don't have to look any further than the Republicans trying to ban gay marriage and reduce abortion rights to a bare minimum to see that.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

It doesn't have to be "divine will", although it might be. And it's not culturally dependent.

I don't know from where it would originate. Nor do I think that's necessarily an important question.

[navrins]

What's generally thought of as accurate physics has also changed from culture to culture and over time, but most people seem to agree that with the possible exception of divine intervention, there *is* a complete and accurate model of physics, even if ours isn't quite it.

Of course, physics is testable, while morality isn't, but I share xiphias's opinion that there is some absolute morality, that is not itself culturally dependent (although the acts it implies are right may vary by culture, just as the path of a spherical elephant varies according to the masses near it) and is internally self-consistent. I also believe I don't know all of what it is, though I hope the model I use is a reasonable approximation.

[erin-c-1978.livejournal.com]

You have interesting thoughts. *adds post to Memories*

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

One of these years, Ian, I really want to meet you in meatspace.