When we think of a vastly superior intelligence, like an alien species or angels or whatever genre you go to for that, I think we imagine a couple scenarios- an alien being writing a massively complex equation across a chalkboard while our best scientists babble furiously trying to figure out the meaning, or perhaps some simple-looking technological device (all glowing spheres,I suppose) that produces free energy or death rays or what-have-you. On the other hand, not EVERY sort of knowledge is this way- if you give one of these super aliens one of those “slide the shaped blocks through the right shaped holes” toys we give toddlers, the super alien isn’t going to solve the puzzle any differently (or probably any faster) than we would. There may be other fields of knowledge like gymnastics or euclidean geometry in which our knowledge is either more or less complete, or else being more intelligent reveals that there is nothing more to reveal.
My question is, what about moral issues? Are moral questions like the sliding block puzzle, where basically any sentient being is going to ‘get it’ insofar as it can be gotten, or are they like science and math where maybe a super-intelligent alien could say something about property rights or the value of life that would blow our minds?
I believe moral laws are derived from physical laws, so yes, it is no different than the sliding block puzzles.
I believe moral laws are just formalized guidelines derived from intelligent social interactions. So some people are moral geniuses and some are morally deficient. But I think we already witness the full range - I don’t think an alien would exhibit moral intelligence that falls outside that spectrum. One caveat - the formalization of moral intelligence involves invention, so someone could certainly come along who dramatically advances the field. He or she or it could invent new, powerful methods for improving one’s own and others’ moral intelligence, for instance. Like an educational reformer, say.
Morality is tied to biology and environment.
What if they have a large number of offspring and eat some of them or feed some to the stronger offspring?
What if they are like insects?
Why would their morality apply to humans?
Good point, though part of moral intelligence is the ability to adjust to different situations without losing touch with the basic spirit of it.
I mean, I don’t define moral intelligence by whether a person believes nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII was a good idea or not. I can’t define it that way, since I can’t compare outcomes.
I don’t get it- understanding of physical laws is at the forefront of scientific advancement, and is probably the single most likely think we’d expect a superior intelligence to be better at than us.
Anon- you believe close to what I believe, except that I don’t think the formalized guidelines are basic moral statements, I think they are derivatives of moral truths and historical happenstance. I think I agree with you that the full range of moral knowledge is available to us though.
Aliens and angels have their own culture. I think there is a wide range of it. It is largely beyond humanity. But, some of it could be understood by humanity also, in some way. I don’t equate intelligence to mathematical rates of speed and processing. I equate intelligence to wisdom and right acts. Negative evil intelligence is useless. It is not “true intelligence”. True being an ideal.
A couple of thoughts:
often when we Think of vastly superior Alien intelligences, they are species that have had more time than us. ARe further along in science and math, etc. They have accumulated knowledge, but are not necessarily more intelligent. A human baby growing up there might do just as well as them. (it might be a different scenario, but I wanted to draw the distinction between a civilizations accumulated intelligence, which is precisely the kind of thing that math equations or science equations on a blackboard might indicate, and actually being more intelligent)
the other thought is that it sounds to me like the baby and blocks thing is similar to tetris, where one must orient virtual blocks to fit as neatly as possible in an ever Rising wall meeting a descending mass of blocks. Some people are much better at this and I Think they likely have a better spatial intelligence - weeding out increased skill due to increased playing time. Perhaps they can manage to hold in their immediate short term memory more chunks of spatial information. And here, it seems, an Alien Life form might be more advanced. Perhaps their Brains simply allow for more of this kind of thing.
So, I get what you mean with the example, and I Think it is a good example, but I wonder if it also is a bit misleading. Perhaps even with blocks and holes the aliens in generally would beat our ‘kasparov’ of putting blocks into the right shaped holes. Perhaps there isn’t a cap on this skill/intelligence area.
On to the meat of the issue, which I Think is interestingly raised, by the way…
Despite what might seem like the implications of the above I Think we would not meet ethical geniuses except in the practical sense. If it is consequentialist ethics, well, they might have longer experience of the effects of various rules and perhaps have better Brains for predicting consequences.
Perhaps they could, for example, talk about what happens with a wide range of penal systems and conceptions of them. Exactly what the consequences are. Either from experience with a wider range for a longer time and/or because they simply can track variables and are better ethical tetris players when it comes to effects.
A proviso: I Think they would also have to be quite like us or have a broad experience of a range of intelligent species, or what works for them may not work for us. But I Think it might be possible to have an intelligence that could study us and get what we need - in terms of the consequences of certain moral rules - better than we would.
But I am not sure if that is what moral intelligence is.
Which leaves me a Little confused by my own position. Am I saying the core of moral intelligence is deontological? I am not sure. I don’t Think so.
I have two reactions: 1) no, once a certain threshold of intelligence is passed you have maxed out on moral intelligence. And the only difference might be accumulated knowledge of what has worked and what hasn’t. But then 2) it also seems to me that on a practical level, they could be better at tracking consequences. Sort of like adult humans are to teenagers, and I Think one could say that adults are more morally intelligent.
So I reach opposing conclusions: one based on a gut reaction which I happen to respect and one based on unraveling what a mind might be capable of.
Now one could say that moral intelligence has to do with doing the best with what one knows are the consequences of certain behaviors and rules. So they might know more, but not be more intelligent. But if you are terrible at understanding consequences, it seems just a given that you can’t have a great moral intelligence.
Anyway, I can only hope I brought up something interesting, since I cannot find a position I am happy with.
I Think angels gets even more messy since they presumably can see into our hearts or have objective knowledge from God. They would simply know or have skills, and useful ones in this context, well beyond ours. And even most deontologists are not going to be as certain as angels would seem to be, at least as presented in the various religions.
By this presumption, higher intelligence aliens ought to have moral wisdom light years beyond humanity. And I believe they do, have both, the physical and moral knowledge.
Moral intelligence, I believe, is complex, subtle and holistic. It may rely on the working together of many types of intelligence such as logical, visual, spatial, verbal, existentialistic, mechanical, contextual and interpersonal. Moral intelligence, spiritual intelligence, intuition and emotional intelligence constitute superior intelligence. What makes these types of intelligence so difficult and subjective to classify and scientifically describe is the complexity, subtlety and abstractness in nature. Mathematical and logical intelligences are probably the easiest and most objective types because they can be supported by tangible evidence and abstract statements.
After all, scientific method and today’s sciences cannot describe the innermost aspects of humanity and human being, because scientific method is a discipline that is the function of the human brain in itself; the human brain holds many unknown and higher aspects, higher consciousness and functions that maintain the lower functions and faculties. It is best left to human’s judgement and combination of intelligences, including emotional and creative, to deal with life threatening situations. It takes a few more stages of human evolution - about a few ten thousand years, for humans to develop advanced faculties and intelligences, which will enable them to precisely define, analyse, rationalise, make objective and reflect on their moral intelligence.
At this stage, we humans rely on empirical evidence and complex social interactions to account for appropriate measures and laws, and define morality. Definitions will change with new contexts and problems.
Sliding blocks puzzle is not a good scientific model, and it does not clearly define and simulate moral intelligence. This puzzle tests spatial intelligence and creativity, which are rudimentary.
I imagine they’d ‘get it’; it’s not a guarantee that they’d care.
Yes.
Correct.
The issue of morality is one that the intelligent know must suit the “users”. Thus when the average intelligence of the users (the masses) is lowered, the apparent morality must alter to match it, even though the higher morality never changes. And additionally, since intelligence comes more in colors than shades of gray, the apparent morality must also, providing a vast variety of kinds of apparent morality. By lowering the actual intelligence of the West, Islam and Judaism/Secularism gained a strong mass advantage over Christianity and Buddhism.
The “apparent morality” is the ethical and socially accepted norms for behavior within specific societal structures, thus varies from society to society. On the higher level, it is immoral to disallow such variance.
So basically what morality is about is a highest level that considers the subjective situation and adjusts accordingly without ever giving up the highest principles. All of life does that same thing, or dies (“the wages of sin is death”).
Excellent point
Ucci said:
" are they like science and math where maybe a super-intelligent alien could say something about property rights or the value of life that would blow our minds?"
I think so since our morality is based on life is precious.
What if it is not? That alone would change perspective on morality 180°
Think about morality based on species contribution.
Ah, but then what if we take it from moral theories? Any consequential theory will do. Consider this superior being likewise has a vastly superior prefrontal cortex (or analogous structure) that grants it the ability to consolidate information and extrapolate potentials in just fucking astounding data fields. Take Dunbar’s number, which suggests an upper limit to the number of social interactions the human can simultaneously manage (somewhere in the low-mid 200s, and this number increases with the average IQ of the group, if I recall correctly). Say we can only consider the effects of an action in reference to a social group of 240, but the hyper-intelligent being refers to a group of 150,000. Perhaps also such a being possesses a neurological function that enables it to avoid personal bias, maybe an evolution of dissociative disorders.
Depends on what kind of effects we’re talking about. Consequentialism is essentially a numbers game. Moral intelligence is about so much more than that. “How many died in the end” isn’t what it’s about, and any “end” is determined arbitrarily.
For the sake of argument, can you tell me why it’s so much more than a “numbers” game? Because eventually, consequentialist or otherwise, you’re going to have to weigh one value against another, and numbers happen to be a rather good way of doing that.
“Good” might be a bit of an exaggeration.