Are people ethically obligated to cheat?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

It can be argued that many problems of the world, such as religious fundamentalism, are rooted in, at least in part, the relativly low level of intellgence found in a large portion of the population. It can certainly be argued that many of these problems would disappear, or at the very least be less of a problem, were the level of average intellegence in the general population to increase. This brings me to the topic at hand...

Given these premises, two questions arose for me. They are:

1. Aren't intellegent men morally obligated morally obligated to "spread the seed" to as many woman, who are married to less intelligent men, as possible?

2. Aren't women in general, regardless of intellegence, morally obligated to "cuckold" their husbands if they find a more intellegent man who is somewhat similar in appearance/physique (so she can fool her husband into thinking that the child is his)?*

*This case assumed that the woman in question can't, for whatever reason, marry the more intelligent man- and that she won't be sacrificing other characteristics that are important in sexual selection for women- such as physique, height, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Sounds like eugenics. If we want to improve humanity through selective breeding, it seems to me that we might as well do it overtly, by discouraging natural conception and encouraging sperm banks where donors and recipients can be screened for suitability. Eugenics via infidelity seems like a ridiculous way to approach the idea, even if you accept its ethics and disregard the ethics of dishonesty.

[Admiral Johnason]

This stinks of eugenics and shows a disregard for love and you are saying that women should be demoted to mere brood mares for the intelligent.

While I am for making humanity smarter, there are these little things called education and understanding. Humans are not horses and should neever be forced to breed simply to produce a single trait.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Sounds like eugenics.

True. Keep in mind though, that many "eugenics" programs in the past were, at best, pseudo-science, and at worst excuses for genocide. None of this however changes the fact that humanity is a biological species whose traits are controlled by its genetic material.

If we want to improve humanity through selective breeding, it seems to me that we might as well do it overtly, by discouraging natural conception and encouraging sperm banks where donors and recipients can be screened for suitability. Eugenics via infidelity seems like a ridiculous way to approach the idea, even if you accept its ethics and disregard the ethics of dishonesty.

You're assuming that it is possible, currently, to impliment such a program on a national level; it isn't.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

can education improve low intelligence, though? Isn't that biological? I think there's a difference between low intelligence in the masses, as he claims, and simple ignorance due to lack of education. I don't think you can make someone intelligent through education, but rather simply educate them based on their intelligence level. The only way to improve intelligence is probably biological interference if it is a biological trait. Perhaps?

Although, I would agree that traditional eugenic measures are unacceptable ethically. However, there is a type of liberal Neo-Eugencs that is basically just voluntary or encouraged gene therapy and GM over generations for the purpouses of minimzing suffering, increasing happiness. It has a distinct Utilitarian ethic to it.

Or at least they call that Eugenics in bioethics circles. It doesn't really resemble old-school Eugenics.

[Admiral Johnason]

Sounds like eugenics.

True. Keep in mind though, that many "eugenics" programs in the past were, at best, pseudo-science, and at worst excuses for genocide. None of this however changes the fact that humanity is a biological species whose traits are controlled by its genetic material.

If we want to improve humanity through selective breeding, it seems to me that we might as well do it overtly, by discouraging natural conception and encouraging sperm banks where donors and recipients can be screened for suitability. Eugenics via infidelity seems like a ridiculous way to approach the idea, even if you accept its ethics and disregard the ethics of dishonesty.

You're assuming that it is possible, currently, to impliment such a program on a national level; it isn't.

You are implying a forced breeding program in order to achieve a desired trait. That is eugenics.

[Junghalli]

An obvious problem with this is that most measures of "intelligence" (like most personality traits) probably have more to do with environment than genetics.

I mean how exactly are you defining intelligence for this? Being successful and making a lot of money? That really has more to do with luck and opportunity. Holding rational beliefs? Again, probably has more to do with environment than genetics. Scoring well on IQ tests? Again, this will likely have more to do with how well-educated and dedicated they are than some innate trait of "intelligence". You can take take a very knowledgeable, very well educated, very smart man, clone him, and have the clone raised in an environment with no opportunities and where critical thinking is discouraged and odds are overwhelming he'll turn out an ignorant moron.

So, what exactly makes you think an intelligent man's child raised in an environment not conducive to intelligent thought will necessarily turn out more intelligent than an unintelligent man's child raised in the same environment?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

You are implying a forced breeding program in order to achieve a desired trait. That is eugenics.

I never did any such thing. Mike was the one who pointed out that it would be more efficient and effective. I merely pointed out thtat it wasn't really possible to do it anyway.

[Darth Wong]

An obvious problem with this is that most measures of "intelligence" (like most personality traits) probably have more to do with environment than genetics.

Bullshit. Intelligence is a primarily genetic trait. How well you utilize your potential is due to environment, but the amount of potential is genetic. A retard will always be a retard even if he goes to the finest schools.

[Admiral Johnason]

You are implying a forced breeding program in order to achieve a desired trait. That is eugenics.

I never did any such thing. Mike was the one who pointed out that it would be more efficient and effective. I merely pointed out thtat it wasn't really possible to do it anyway.

I posted at the same time he did and I also came to the same conclusion.

You are talking about the use of breeding to achive a desired trait (i.e. intelligence.) You are implying eugenics because you want women to breed solely on this trait to produce smarter children. Breeding to get a desired trait is eugenics. Get that through your thick head you idiotic imbicile.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

You are implying a forced breeding program in order to achieve a desired trait. That is eugenics.

I never did any such thing. Mike was the one who pointed out that it would be more efficient and effective. I merely pointed out thtat it wasn't really possible to do it anyway.

I posted at the same time he did and I also came to the same conclusion.

You are talking about the use of breeding to achive a desired trait (i.e. intelligence.) You are implying eugenics because you want women to breed solely on this trait to produce smarter children. Breeding to get a desired trait is eugenics. Get that through your thick head you idiotic imbicile.

Stop putting words in my mouth; I never advocated, in any way, a forced breeding program. I merely argued that we are ethically responsible, on an INDIVIDUAL level, to breed for a particular trait- intelligence. There is a huge difference between the two.

Is this "eugenics"? It is in the sense that your stating that one trait is better then another. Namely- intellegence is better then stupidity. Is that wrong? I certainly don't think so.

[Darth Wong]

We already breed on certain traits. Attractive people tend to marry other attractive people, thus producing attractive children. That is currently the only trait that our society considers acceptable as a basis for selective breeding.

PS. Admiral Johnason, I've had my disagreements with BlkBerry in the past, but he never even mentioned a forced eugenics program; he was talking about voluntary eugenics, in which people voluntarily bred for the purpose of propagating particular traits.

[Junghalli]

Bullshit. Intelligence is a primarily genetic trait. How well you utilize your potential is due to environment, but the amount of potential is genetic. A retard will always be a retard even if he goes to the finest schools.

My point was how are we supposed to differentiate between people who are simply stupid and people who have the genetic potential to be very intelligent but don't use it?

[Junghalli]

Ghetto edit: is there actually a genetic intelligence potential test, with present technology? Just curious.

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. Intelligence is a primarily genetic trait. How well you utilize your potential is due to environment, but the amount of potential is genetic. A retard will always be a retard even if he goes to the finest schools.

My point was how are we supposed to differentiate between people who are simply stupid and people who have the genetic potential to be very intelligent but don't use it?

We don't. Those people fall through the cracks. But the reverse is not true for people who are obviously intelligent. A smart person can seem like an idiot if he's been raised in a terrible environment, but no amount of education and care will make an idiot into a smart person.

[Admiral Johnason]

We already breed on certain traits. Attractive people tend to marry other attractive people, thus producing attractive children. That is currently the only trait that our society considers acceptable as a basis for selective breeding.

PS. Admiral Johnason, I've had my disagreements with BlkBerry in the past, but he never even mentioned a forced eugenics program; he was talking about voluntary eugenics, in which people voluntarily bred for the purpose of propagating particular traits.

I understand, but he seemed to imply that he wanted this trait to be pushed more than on just a personal basis.

I agree that stupidity is bad, but you can't emphasie one trait for breeding, no matter how preferbable it is to it's opposite.

The problem with intelligence is how do you base it. Some women prefer men who can compete in different areas of intellectual persuits. I know guy who can't do shit when it comes to math of science, but are extremely veresed and capable when it comes to the liberal arts.

[Darth Wong]

I agree that stupidity is bad, but you can't emphasie one trait for breeding, no matter how preferbable it is to it's opposite.

Why not? Remember, we're not talking about a forced government program here, just a hypothetical social movement.

The problem with intelligence is how do you base it. Some women prefer men who can compete in different areas of intellectual persuits. I know guy who can't do shit when it comes to math of science, but are extremely veresed and capable when it comes to the liberal arts.

What makes you think that someone intelligent enough to do advanced math would have trouble doing liberal arts if that's where he chose to focus his attentions? We know the opposite is usually not the case; people who eschew math and science tend to do so because they just can't hack it. How many people get flunked out of liberal arts and then fall back on math and science?

[Admiral Johnason]

I agree that stupidity is bad, but you can't emphasie one trait for breeding, no matter how preferbable it is to it's opposite.

Why not? Remember, we're not talking about a forced government program here, just a hypothetical social movement.

The problem with intelligence is how do you base it. Some women prefer men who can compete in different areas of intellectual persuits. I know guy who can't do shit when it comes to math of science, but are extremely veresed and capable when it comes to the liberal arts.

What makes you think that someone intelligent enough to do advanced math would have trouble doing liberal arts if that's where he chose to focus his attentions? We know the opposite is usually not the case; people who eschew math and science tend to do so because they just can't hack it. How many people get flunked out of liberal arts and then fall back on math and science?

Touche.

If the preference is completely voluntary, then there is no problem. It just didn't feel right that attraction would be based on intelligence solely to produce smarter offspring instead of helping companionship.

[Noble Ire]

Though breeding a more intellegent populace certainly is desirable, especially if it can be accomplished without infringing on civil liberties (lacking the afformentioned forced eugenics programs), I don't see it as a moral imperative that all intellegent men and women should follow, and certainly not at the cost of an otherwise potentially stable family (after all, even genetically intellegent children might be irrevocably messed up by a household shattered by a botched operation of this sort). If people feel compelled to do this, it is their prerogrative; otherwise, I would view imposing morality on this just as I view people who try to guilt trip westerners into giving all their money to impoverished asian children.

[Count Dooku]

2. Aren't women in general, regardless of intellegence, morally obligated to "cuckold" their husbands if they find a more intellegent man who is somewhat similar in appearance/physique (so she can fool her husband into thinking that the child is his)?*

*This case assumed that the woman in question can't, for whatever reason, marry the more intelligent man- and that she won't be sacrificing other characteristics that are important in sexual selection for women- such as physique, height, etc.

Having a kid with an intelligent man doesn't mean that her kid will be intelligent - the kid needs a strong education in order to really suceed. Physical characteristics are pretty much the same thing: if she gets the kid to excercise, it'll be in good physical shape. Unless the kid is deformed (physically, mentally, or both), the determining factor will be it's lifestyle, not the genetics of the parents.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying genetics doesn't play a big part, because it does, just not as big a part as lifestyle.

[Darth Wong]

2. Aren't women in general, regardless of intellegence, morally obligated to "cuckold" their husbands if they find a more intellegent man who is somewhat similar in appearance/physique (so she can fool her husband into thinking that the child is his)?*

*This case assumed that the woman in question can't, for whatever reason, marry the more intelligent man- and that she won't be sacrificing other characteristics that are important in sexual selection for women- such as physique, height, etc.

Having a kid with an intelligent man doesn't mean that her kid will be intelligent - the kid needs a strong education in order to really suceed. Physical characteristics are pretty much the same thing: if she gets the kid to excercise, it'll be in good physical shape. Unless the kid is deformed (physically, mentally, or both), the determining factor will be it's lifestyle, not the genetics of the parents.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying genetics doesn't play a big part, because it does, just not as big a part as lifestyle.

And how is it that you have managed to conclusively settle a debate which has raged for centuries in the philosophical, psychological, and medical communities? I would love to know how you, apparently a world-leading authority on the subject since you have resolved the nature vs nurture debate, have come to these conclusions. Please share with us your undoubtedly fascinating and ground-breaking research.

[Zero]

There's the problem of actually proving the assertion that a populace with greater intelligence will actually be good for any given society for your ethical claim to work out. It's quite obvious that society needs the less intelligent people to run less intelligent jobs. If everyone's out being an engineer and designing bridges, there's not going to be any dumber people to actually work construction and build them. If everyone's at the office designing useful new software to make many operations run by computers go more smoothly, who's going to be taking out the garbage, cleaning out the bathrooms, all that extra shit? Who'll cook and serve food? I mean, there's a lot of jobs that people simply wouldn't be happy doing, and a smarter general populace would mean more people who were qualified for smarter jobs would slip through the cracks.

Smarter people are also less likely to accept things that have long been held as true simply because they've worked in the past. Trying out new ideas can be good, but if everyone's doing it, then whatever society you have won't be very stable.

Besides all of this, cheating simply isn't the most effect means of propogating smart genes. Jealous, stupid, and angry husbands are more likely to resort of physical violence of some sort, so many prospective gene propogating smart people might end up getting fucked up, or possibly killed. There's also the fact that many fathers would abandon their wives and children if they found out that the children weren't actually theirs, and with the genetic tests available today, this isn't entirely impossible.

The potential negative effects of breaking up an entire family over an affair and leaving a child with no acting father outweight whatever possible positive effects of cheating could bring about. Even if a kid is smart, if he's coming from a broken home, he's much less likely to be successful or well-ballanced.

A better means of propogating smart genes would be sperm and ova donations, so that infertile couples will have smarter children to raise and support. This won't result in broken homes the way cheating does, and also avoids the ethical dillemas relating to honesty.

[Zero]

Oh, and as a side note, to those claiming that genetics aren't important in determining intelligence, that's tantamount to saying that my dog should be able to learn as much as Mike. It's silly to believe that all people are equally capable of learning the same things. Genes determine how the brain is shaped and all that, and even though social influences are very important for intelligence, the brain can operate in such a way as to facilitate learning better than other brains, so even if intelligence is primarily a learned behavior, some brains will be better at it than others.

And for the record, my dog is damned smart for dogs. I swear to god, that fuckin thing speaks English.

[drachefly]

Eugenics which cannot eliminate anyone is weakened to the point of uselessness. You either clump the 'good' and 'bad' genes together, thus producing a polarized populace, or you mix them, producing... who knows what.

But if you're going to do it, just marry the right person, don't marry a 'wrong' person and boink the 'right' person.

[Andrew J.]

If people based their sex choices on "moral obligations" then cheating would not even exist.

So to answer your questions: sure, but good luck finding anyone willing to do it.