Normative Ethics

Yeah, this society doesn’t provide for a lot of healthy work for supreme IQs.
High IQ gives a lot of strain, high strung nerves, as thinking is incredibly energy consuming.
To work with the hands, especially lifting heavy stuff and all that, is the most relaxing thing for an all too intelligent person.

I would give less weightage to IQ - perhaps 5%.

What is more critical and carry higher weightages are EQ - emotional intelligence, Moral Quotient, spiritual Quotient, encompassing philosophical Quotient [40%], and wisdom quotient.

My condition is these average quotients should be increased by > 500% as compared the current status of the average person. Then an efficient fool proof Team Humanity will emerged spontaneously.

When there is a critical comprising the average of >500% then those in the minority will not be powerful to create problems for the majority.
In addition, the majority will contribute to increase the various quotients of those in the minority.

There will come a time in the future, where those in the lowest 10% will have a score of 500% over the current people today.

What is a high EQ officially anyway? What sort of beliefs and actions constitute it?

With all the untreated and rampant mental illness today as well as societal degeneracy in general, how would these extremely high EQs for all come into being?

Also much of what we breathe and consume is poisoning our nervous systems which controls the EQ. Sounds like nice pie in the sky the IQ and EQ improvements.

I try to be fair in my dealings with others, whether they’re friends, family, associates, acquaintances or strangers, whether they’re white or non-white, it’s just I’m more likely to be generous with friends, family and whites, and of course there’s nothing abnormal about that, yet conventional consequentialist ethics like utilitarianism don’t take friends, family and race into account, even tho it’s human nature to do so, because there’s a left-wing bias in philosophy, not just in political philosophy, but even in strictly ethical, perhaps even in epistemological and metaphysical.

The right uses these feelings of kith and kinship we have to manipulate us, but my feelings are my own, as far as I know myself, I won’t support their wars just because they tell me it’s in our best interests to, it’s usually only in the elite’s best interests, and even if it were in ours, like we wanted their oil or some other resource for our collective benefit, I would never support a war against another people unless we were desperate and there was no alternative, I’d rather cut back on consumption.

With the left it’s the opposite, since they’re anti-white, they’ll guilt trip us into thinking we need to invade this or that country to spread democracy.

Of course liberals and conservatives will invoke nationalism, anti-nationalism or some combination thereof in order to justify war and further subjugate us, I’m speaking more archetypally than practically.

Btw, I am not stating my proposals will work immediately today and now.
Humanity must start right now and hope to reap benefits within 50 years, if not 75 or 100.

What is Emotional Intelligence?

At present the EQ models are quite crude and this will be improved with greater precision in the future.

One promising view of EQ is its dependence on empathy.
Empathy is in one way related to mirror neurons in the brain, thus providing a possible objective basis to EQ.

Note many of the above hypothesis are work in progress but there are high optimism due to the current trend in the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology [IT and AI] leveraged on two significant fields, i.e.

The Human Genome Project | NHGRI​
genome.gov/human-genome-project

The Human Connectome Project
humanconnectomeproject.org/

Note beside EQ, I mentioned;
It is also the same for other human quotients, e.g. spirituality [SQ], rationality, wisdom [QWQ], morality [MQ], ethical, philosophy [PQ], teambuilding [TQ] and various quotients where we need to increase the average by at least 3-5 folds.

I think humanity has about as much chance of destroying itself and life as we know it in our post/transhumanist quest to expand our capabilities, as we have of expanding our capabilities.

When it comes to the physical sciences and understanding the here/now, I think science is pretty reliable, but when it comes to understanding the distant past/future, I think it’s just guessing.

I don’t know how life began (abiogenesis, panspermia, Abrahamic or Vedic creationism, something else?), I don’t know exactly how it evolved, I don’t know how many mass extinction events there’ve been, or whether we’re on the verge of one because of some earthbound asteroid, or because of our greed, not only greed for wealth and power, but greed for knowledge.

There’re some truths we can’t handle…there may be some truths we’ll never be able to.

But I know science is hiding loads of stuff about UFOs and prehistory.

Life may be far more ubiquitous than they want us to believe.

So in light of all that, I’m not in a rush to expand our capabilities.

I think we should tread carefully, or stay put.

And I don’t think valuing oneself, one’s tribe and one’s species over others is in any way, shape or form irrational, or on its way out for that matter anytime soon, if ever.

For me, results precede actions in importance for determining good, bad and right, wrong.
It’s not that actions aren’t intrinsically important, just not as intrinsically important.
It’s intrinsically good to be honest, reciprocative and noncoercive with others, but if you or someone you care about is in need, and there’s no alternative, there’s such a thing as white lies, white theft if you will, and under extraordinary circumstances, even white murder.
essentially there’s such a thing as, necessary evils.
While it’s better for people to meet their needs honestly and noncoercively by helping others meet theirs, this’s not always possible, for society is corrupt and resources are limited.
While it’s better for people to turn to government to fairly and/or necessarily redistribute resources, that’s not always possible either, for the same reasons, and in such cases, theft may be justified.

In determining what is good, we don’t always have the time and energy to carefully weigh situations out, sometimes we need to rely on our intuition.

And I believe that without feelings, morals and values are impossible.
There’s no such thing as a strictly rational ethics.

Reason, as well as intuition, can help us find some consistency in our feelings over times and places, and it can inform us about the likely results of acting on our feelings in this or that manner, but without any feelings at all, we’d have no motivation to act.

Tell that to your computer, or cell phone, or the change counting machine at your local bank.

Tribalism is an a natural and necessary instinct to facilitate survival of a tribe in ancient times perhaps still necessary to a small degree at present.
The negative side of tribalism is the consequences of genocides arising from the extreme effect of the ‘us versus them’ impulses.

I agree some degree of tribalism is still necessary at the present but as I had argued above, there is a need to evolve and progress away from tribalism into the sense of the global Team Humanity towards the future.
Note the fact that while tribalism is still unfortunately necessary so it its potential for genocide and tribal conflicts between groups which is happening at present.

Thus we need to visionaries and plan for the future from the present state of potential turmoils.

This is the reason why I am proposing we [those who have the foresight] work toward a holistic Framework and System of Morality and Ethics that will modulate the tribal impulse to the minimum or Zero effect.

This is why I do not agree with Consequentialism as a complete and holistic Moral and Ethical theory.
Consequentialism often use the casuistry approach, e.g. the Trolley Dilemma.
In real life, there are infinite possibilities thus it is impossible to improve one Moral and Ethical state to cover all the effective solutions for all possibilities and scenarios.

This is why I advocated a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to encompass consequentialism together with other necessary sub-systems.

In a complete and holistic Framework and System, one of the strategy is to reduce and prevent the possibilities of moral dilemma occurrences in the first place. If the minimal of dilemmas ever occur, then one would do the best based on one’s developed competence and do not brood over whatever the consequences, while taking steps to prevent future occurrences.

Both reason and feelings are essential but they have to be in complementarity within a holistic and complete Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

One point is within a complete system, we have to differentiate Morality as confined to pure reason dealing with absolute moral laws, while ethics deals with feelings and the practical world.

The burst of energy computers and machines receive, that’s programmed to go off when certain cognitive, mathematical and physical criteria are met, that compels them to do this and that, is the equivalent of their feelings.

I agree with David Hume when he said: “You can’t get an is from an ought”.

For me, tribalism has intrinsic value.

We can carefully consider as many meaningful responses to a situation, and their potential ramifications as we can, before taking action, and leave the rest to improvisation, intuition and chance.
We can also develop guidelines: A action generally leads to a preferable outcome when executed by B people in C situations.
Of course no two actions, people or situations are exactly the same, but similar actions taken by similar people in similar situations tend to have similar outcomes.

I agree, consequentialism alone seems insufficient.
Results are only part of what makes actions good, bad, right and wrong.
The actions or behaviors themselves are also part of what makes them good/bad.
I think honesty, reciprocity and noncoercion are intrinsically good, and generally extrinsically good, as well as whatever thoughts and feelings are conducive to such behaviors.

And then there’s the matter of what consequences and for whom?
For me, rather than focusing solely on happiness ala utilitarianism, I believe in maximizing the chances of survival in an optimal state of physical and mental health (happiness being just one aspect of emotional health among many) for as many people as possible, especially for me, my kith and (extended) kin, and especially for those among my kith and kin who can give something back to our community.
Near perfect safety and health are difficult to attain and maintain, so it’s enough we’re relatively safe and in a fair state of health.
The difference between fair health and poor is greater than fair health and great.

In order to improve our odds of surviving in an optimal state of health, we ought to focus more on physical and mental needs than wants.
It’s not that wants are bad, some are good in moderation, they’re just definitionally secondary, and in many cases not worth the trouble, many wants are difficult to satisfy and come with too high a price.

We also ought to use more natural means of satisfying our needs than artificial.
Of course nature/artifice, like anything, can be thought of as a spectrum rather than binary, and it’s impossible to completely dispense with artifice.
That being said, while not intrinsically bad, generally I think it’s healthier for ourselves and the environment on which we depend to satisfy our needs more naturally if we can.
I think we’ve gone too far off the deep end with technology.

Conflict between the various goods, health, honesty, liberty, reciprocity…is unavoidable, and this is when figuring out which course of action to take becomes especially difficult.

Hm, I’m not sure if I’ve considered this point much, please elaborate if you’re interested.
I know that if you reduce poverty, you reduce the need for some people to have to lie, cheat and steal.

For me, reason can tell you more about what nouns (people, places and things) and their implications are, and knowing more about them will help us determine whether and when they’re good, bad, somewhere in between, but ultimately it’s feelings that tell you whether they’re good or bad.
Morals and values are just more carefully assessed preferences we have.

I’m not an absolutist, especially when it comes to morals and values.
My ethical framework is intended as more a guideline that works for me and perhaps some other people, rather than some kind of transcendent, metaphysical or natural law.

This is backed up by neuroscience, Damasio I believe is the neuroscientist who started spreading the word on this. People with damaged limbic systems were perfectly capable of interacting well with many practical problem but their social logic was impaired. IOW they lost the ability to know how to actsocial situations. But more than this many skills that seem unrelated to emotions and are supposedlypurely rational, they not longer had. So one not only loses the ability to be moral, or as you say, the motivation, you even lose the ability to reason without emotions. YOu don’t even know when to stop analyzing or how to prioritize.

Yes, reduced poverty will reduce immoralities associated with poverty.

This is what I meant when I proposed humanity as a team must strive from now and as soon a possible to come together to increase the various quotients I mentioned above, i.e. morality, ethical, intelligence, emotional, psychological, wisdom, spiritual, philosophical and other relevant quotient.

For example on the issue of abortion [in general I don’t agree with], it is not effective to introduce more laws on abortion.
But with the increase in the various quotient above, we will tackle the root cause, i.e. the modulation of the sexual impulse and people should be VERY mindful of the various negative consequences when indulging in sex. They will not be led blindly by the primal sexual impulses. The modulation of sexual impulses will definitely reduce unplanned conception to the minimal if not ZERO.

With the increase in the various quotients to hundreds fold or more in the future, most the problems we face today will be tackled at the root cause, i.e. within the human mind. If mistakes are made, people will strive for correction, prevention and improvement.

What I am talking about is meta-reason that analyzes all sort of human experiences and feeling to abstract reasoned moral laws to act upon.
Then humans are trained to align with the reasoned absolute moral laws.
Point is when a person is trained competently, the action is spontaneous, i.e. not based on feelings at the point of execution.

Note the top professional sport people - they don’t act based on their feelings but execute what is effective to gain the point in a spontaneous mode, note ‘flow’.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology
Flow is characterized by complete absorption in what one does, and a resulting loss in one’s sense of space and time.

Note the common absolute moral law of ‘Thou Shall not Kill’ period! [an ought] is abstracted from the feelings and experiences of the collective [the “is”].
But humans being fallible we do not expect such an “ought” to be an “is” but they work in complementarity within an effective moral framework.

As fallible human being by nature, you cannot be an absolutists.
However you can accept absolute moral values as a guide.

Would you prefer

1 ‘No Killing of Human Being’ as a personal moral guide

or

  1. I can kill some or a few human beings unconditionally because the stats indicate human beings do have feelings and have killed other human beings based on their evil feelings to kill.

If you adopt the personal absolute moral value of
“No Killing of Human Being”
That will be your first standard and moral criteria in such an issue in whatever the circumstances.
But being human and fallible, you may have to kill under certain conditions not within your control, etc. or even if you have a choice on the issue, like being an executor.

In this case, you have an absolute moral standard to judge against future actions or actions that had been taken. This gap will trigger the conscience to respond.
As such upon the above there is a moral gap between the “ought” and “is”.
It is then for the person to review to close and improve on the gap on a continual basis.

If one do not accept an absolute moral gap, then in this case, one will continue to kill humans without an absolute ceiling limit to guide the person and his/her conscience will not be triggered as there is no moral gap.

Therefore absolute moral laws [abstracted from experiences and feeling of the collective] are effective within a moral framework and system.

The question is how to abstract all necessary absolute moral laws as guides that are objective. I know this can be done.

Nice, this helps prove my point.

I prefer generalizations to absolutes.
I’m against murder, except under extraordinary circumstances.