I mean, wouldnt that be a worse basis for judgement though? Like, a significant amount a person’s intelligence is based on non-voluntary factors, so judging someone for a lower than average intelligence seems unfair in the same way that judging them for being short or looking unattractive or such would be. Further, while a lower intelligence might make it harder for someone to understand more complicated ideas, it isnt a guarantee of them being wrong either, so one cant dismiss the contributions of a less intelligent person as always useless just because of their intelligence. Meanwhile, a person’s views are comparatively more changeable, more influenced by that person’s decisions, and an incorrect or morally repugnant idea is going to be wrong regardless of how intelligent the person holding it is.
People aren’t judging others they meet on a day to day basis on “repugnant ideals” or moral absolutes. They’re judging people based on those people doing something that they don’t like. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred people are just going about their day, they’re not trying to push their agenda or make you live the way they prefer.
Really, my criticism was of the basis of the quote, that someone is stupid because of how you met them during the day rather than their actual intelligence level. That someone is dumb because they don’t agree with you, or do something in a way you don’t like. Which, kind of, is what you’re saying. The problem is they’re quantifying it as stupidity instead of moral repugnance.
There are a ton of intelligent people who are absolutely abhorrent. Just because they disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re dumb… they just don’t share your values.
I mean, wouldnt that be a worse basis for judgement though? Like, a significant amount a person’s intelligence is based on non-voluntary factors, so judging someone for a lower than average intelligence seems unfair in the same way that judging them for being short or looking unattractive or such would be. Further, while a lower intelligence might make it harder for someone to understand more complicated ideas, it isnt a guarantee of them being wrong either, so one cant dismiss the contributions of a less intelligent person as always useless just because of their intelligence. Meanwhile, a person’s views are comparatively more changeable, more influenced by that person’s decisions, and an incorrect or morally repugnant idea is going to be wrong regardless of how intelligent the person holding it is.
People aren’t judging others they meet on a day to day basis on “repugnant ideals” or moral absolutes. They’re judging people based on those people doing something that they don’t like. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred people are just going about their day, they’re not trying to push their agenda or make you live the way they prefer.
Really, my criticism was of the basis of the quote, that someone is stupid because of how you met them during the day rather than their actual intelligence level. That someone is dumb because they don’t agree with you, or do something in a way you don’t like. Which, kind of, is what you’re saying. The problem is they’re quantifying it as stupidity instead of moral repugnance.
There are a ton of intelligent people who are absolutely abhorrent. Just because they disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re dumb… they just don’t share your values.