Does stupidity have ethical implications?

[Figleaf]

Let's say someone inexperienced or uninformed proposes to do something with inherent risks and massive potential for harm to many.

Let's say he says that the risks are worth it, because he's convinced a positive outcome will follow.

Now let's say more experienced and informed people are united in warning him that it's utter folly, that the dangers are bigger than he realizes, and that the chances for success are virtually non-existent.

So the inexperienced guy responds: all you experts are dummies and jerks. And he goes ahead and does it, and it turns out just as the experts said.

Is the inexperienced guy merely mistaken, or does the character of his mistake and his treatment of the warnings make his action ethically worse than a mistake?

[jbg]

Is the inexperienced guy merely mistaken, or does the character of his mistake and his treatment of the warnings make his action ethically worse than a mistake?

Yes, because he was warned of the consequences.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Figleaf,

So the inexperienced guy responds: all you experts are dummies and jerks. And he goes ahead and does it, and it turns out just as the experts said.

Darwin usually weeds these guys out before they do too much harm.

Is the inexperienced guy merely mistaken

Yes, for the opposite of 'mistake' in this case would be 'malice'.

[Liam]

I would characterize it as reckless, not necessarily malice. It would be appropriate to call it malice is the actor *knew* the negative result would occur yet acted anyway. In any event, it does say a lot about a person's character to go against the overwhelming voice of experience, particularly if the result is almost assured to be negative and impact of that negative result is felt by many who had no say about joining this enterprise.

(Gee, I wonder what or whom we are talking about...? )

[margrace]

Well not too hard to figure out who fits this description does it. Now we have one in Canada as well.

[Argus]

Let's say someone inexperienced or uninformed proposes to do something with inherent risks and massive potential for harm to many.

Let's say he says that the risks are worth it, because he's convinced a positive outcome will follow.

Now let's say more experienced and informed people are united in warning him that it's utter folly, that the dangers are bigger than he realizes, and that the chances for success are virtually non-existent.

So the inexperienced guy responds: all you experts are dummies and jerks. And he goes ahead and does it, and it turns out just as the experts said.

Is the inexperienced guy merely mistaken, or does the character of his mistake and his treatment of the warnings make his action ethically worse than a mistake?

I suppose that would depend on an unbiased assessment of the quality of the people giving advice, and the likelihood they were speaking honestly, or simply out of venal self-interest.

[Figleaf]

Let's say someone inexperienced or uninformed proposes to do something with inherent risks and massive potential for harm to many.

Let's say he says that the risks are worth it, because he's convinced a positive outcome will follow.

Now let's say more experienced and informed people are united in warning him that it's utter folly, that the dangers are bigger than he realizes, and that the chances for success are virtually non-existent.

So the inexperienced guy responds: all you experts are dummies and jerks. And he goes ahead and does it, and it turns out just as the experts said.

Is the inexperienced guy merely mistaken, or does the character of his mistake and his treatment of the warnings make his action ethically worse than a mistake?

I suppose that would depend on an unbiased assessment of the quality of the people giving advice, and the likelihood they were speaking honestly, or simply out of venal self-interest.

Yes. But within the hypothetical, I'm assuming that's not an issue.

[DarkAngel_]

ya, it means he is moraly stupid, an example is my sister in-law:

she is 19 and went to chathlic school, she is very misinformed and is clueless to the most basic qeustions

yesterday we found out she stole jewlry from my mothers room, up to $1500 worth, and gave them away as christmas presents to her family, morally stupid or what?

also, my apendix exploded , ans i just got emergency surgery on christmas night, wish me luck people, they say i may have an internal infection.

as well, what do you do if someone does a morally stupid thing? like the example above? how would you solve it?

or more so, should she be punished? and how?

[Argus]

Let's say someone inexperienced or uninformed proposes to do something with inherent risks and massive potential for harm to many.

Let's say he says that the risks are worth it, because he's convinced a positive outcome will follow.

Now let's say more experienced and informed people are united in warning him that it's utter folly, that the dangers are bigger than he realizes, and that the chances for success are virtually non-existent.

So the inexperienced guy responds: all you experts are dummies and jerks. And he goes ahead and does it, and it turns out just as the experts said.

Is the inexperienced guy merely mistaken, or does the character of his mistake and his treatment of the warnings make his action ethically worse than a mistake?

I suppose that would depend on an unbiased assessment of the quality of the people giving advice, and the likelihood they were speaking honestly, or simply out of venal self-interest.

Yes. But within the hypothetical, I'm assuming that's not an issue.

Even within a hypothetical, it has to be assessed. People don't do things because they believe they'll screw them up. If people were telling you X won't work, again and again, and you respected those people and their knowledge and honesty, then you surely wouldn't do X. Unless you're a raving imbecile, of course, like those people who try to skateboard off the roofs of houses and break their necks.

[jbg]

Are people talking about discriminating against stupid people? My IQ is 84, and I hope no one discriminates against me for that.

[jdobbin]

Are people talking about discriminating against stupid people? My IQ is 84, and I hope no one discriminates against me for that.

That's pretty high. I have a hard time spelling IQ and VW.

[geoffrey]

ya, it means he is moraly stupid, an example is my sister in-law:

she is 19 and went to chathlic school, she is very misinformed and is clueless to the most basic qeustions

yesterday we found out she stole jewlry from my mothers room, up to $1500 worth, and gave them away as christmas presents to her family, morally stupid or what?

as well, what do you do if someone does a morally stupid thing? like the example above? how would you solve it?

or more so, should she be punished? and how?

It's tough. Personally I'm a believer in intentions being the decider of morality... but I don't claim to be philosophically gifted so I may be 'wrong'. Someone with good intentions can never be wrong IMO. So it would depend, were her intentions good in that she didn't realise that stealing was wrong.

I went to Catholic school initially and I didn't find it much different. My younger siblings are still in the other side of the system and they receive essientially the same education... so I'm not sure if that's the issue here.

Intentions are the toughest to measure though. Someone drinking and driving that kills someone obviously didn't intend to kill someone, but they still need to be punished. By the same token, if a gangster shoots at someone and misses he only likely going to get a fine where the intention was to kill. Who's the bigger social degenerate there?

also, my apendix exploded , ans i just got emergency surgery on christmas night, wish me luck people, they say i may have an internal infection.

Best of luck, those darned useless organs.