NOTE: I now write for Aporia Magazine. Please sign up there! Those of us who entertain the plausibility of hereditarianism (that genes contribute to racial IQ gaps) are often accused of claiming that some groups are “inferior” to others. “So what you’re saying is that black people are just inferior to white people?!” the critic will sputter, Cathy Newman-style.
That IQ test score point for nazi war criminals was such a fascinating, and imo powerful argument. I’m surprised after all the years of reading the discourse around this subject, this is the first time I’m seeing it. Good find Noah, this is why I subscribe
I have been struggling for some time with exactly this issue. It seems repugnant to think of less intelligent people as being less worthy, and clearly it's not the only characteristic that should be taken into account. But what about other species? My dog is a charming creature, clearly capable of affection and loyalty and probably hard work too (judging by what sheepdogs and sleigh dogs do) though he doesn't have much chance to prove that. Do I think he's of equal moral worth to a human? No, not quite. But why not? Because he's less intelligent than a human or simply because he isn't human? Or a combination of both?
Continuing in the same vein, suppose there were still Neanderthals around. Would we consider them to have the same moral worth us as? I think most of us probably would. But what about Australopithecus, whose brain was only the size of a chimp's? I think most of us probably wouldn't. That suggests intelligence is the most important factor..
At the opposite end of the scale, what a form of AI develops that is not only more intelligent than us but also self-aware? Or what if we encountered intelligent alien life-forms? Would we consider either or both of them to be of the same equal moral worth as us? If we would, it would also suggest that intelligence is the most important factor, since they clearly wouldn't be related to us. Conversely, If we would regard them of the same worth, that would suggest relatedness is at least equally important.
But is there any moral justification basing our view of moral worth on either of those things? And if there is, why should we not apply the same criteria to our fellow humans?
That IQ test score point for nazi war criminals was such a fascinating, and imo powerful argument. I’m surprised after all the years of reading the discourse around this subject, this is the first time I’m seeing it. Good find Noah, this is why I subscribe
I have been struggling for some time with exactly this issue. It seems repugnant to think of less intelligent people as being less worthy, and clearly it's not the only characteristic that should be taken into account. But what about other species? My dog is a charming creature, clearly capable of affection and loyalty and probably hard work too (judging by what sheepdogs and sleigh dogs do) though he doesn't have much chance to prove that. Do I think he's of equal moral worth to a human? No, not quite. But why not? Because he's less intelligent than a human or simply because he isn't human? Or a combination of both?
Continuing in the same vein, suppose there were still Neanderthals around. Would we consider them to have the same moral worth us as? I think most of us probably would. But what about Australopithecus, whose brain was only the size of a chimp's? I think most of us probably wouldn't. That suggests intelligence is the most important factor..
At the opposite end of the scale, what a form of AI develops that is not only more intelligent than us but also self-aware? Or what if we encountered intelligent alien life-forms? Would we consider either or both of them to be of the same equal moral worth as us? If we would, it would also suggest that intelligence is the most important factor, since they clearly wouldn't be related to us. Conversely, If we would regard them of the same worth, that would suggest relatedness is at least equally important.
But is there any moral justification basing our view of moral worth on either of those things? And if there is, why should we not apply the same criteria to our fellow humans?
Should 'white colour crime' be 'white collar crime"?