in a position of power. — baker

:roll:

The rationale is that a highly intelligent person is more likely (on account of being more intelligent) to see the complexity of life, more likely to see how complex problems in life are and thus, more likely to see how difficult it will be to solve them. — baker

Yes, highly intelligent person can see more things about life, which will be too complex for a not so intelligent person, but this does not mean that he cannot solve them. In fact, and as I have already mentioned in this thread, his problem-solving ability is higher. (Remember: IQ is all about problem-solving.) Also a high IQ person has better understanding and can simplify things.

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” (Einstein))

Life is much more simple for high- than for average-IQ people.

However, a lot depends on the people one lives with and the resources one has available. — baker

I agree.

for a highly intelligent person the lack of social input and resources that meaningfully respond to their complex understanding of the world will have a negative effect — baker

I cannot say. I have no such examples in mind.

there can be no proof that high IQ is connected to unhappiness per se. — baker

But it's you you have already mentioned to me earlier: "Superior IQs are associated with mental and physical disorders, research suggests", etc. In fact you have brought up 3 references! (Re: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/625535)

Anyway, this was my position from start. So, there's no reason for talking about this subject anymore.

I think we want to describe ethics on rational foundations, but inherently its something purely subjective. — john27

Yes, one can --and should! :smile:-- describe etchics on a purely rational basis. What you call "subjective" is that everyone has his own ethics, based on his views about the world, as well as mental conditions (from simple misunderstandings to severe mentel illnesses). However, almost every (sane) person would agree with basic ethics principles, e.g. it is unethical to intentionally steal, harm, suppress, invalidate, etc. other people. All these is based on rational thinking. They all refer to survival and well being.

I have also explained why "an unethical person can never be happy."
— Alkis Piskas
I find it hard to believe that out of 7 billion people there are no counterexamples — Nicholas Mihaila

Oh, certainly. Esp. in Chicago of the 30's! :grin: Killing was a pleasure. It must still be, I believe, for the Mafia. Here are some counterexamples for you! :grin:

BTW, it's good that you brought up this, because I should make a distinction regardinf what I said above: It only refers to sane people. A mentally ill person (psychotic, insane) usually cannot distinguish between right and wrong. That's why courts often sentence people to mental hospitals instead of prisons when it is proved that they are mentally ill and cannot distinguish between right and wrong, including the act for which they are accused and admit they did.

BTW #2: Thanks for all your aknknowledgets!

in a position of power.
— baker
:roll: — 180 Proof

What good are one's high morals and one's high principles, if one is otherwise a loser, a slave, defeated and downtrodden by others?

Are your virtues really so much of a reward in and of themselves so as to outweigh the misery and the hardships you need to endure, misery and hardship that can also be due to your holding on to those very virtues and acting according to them?

What good are one's high morals and one's high principles, if one is otherwise a loser, a slave, defeated and downtrodden by others? — baker

Ethics have nothing to do with being a slave or a master. They have to do with survival end well-being. You are more well-off mentally and spiritually if your actions are ethical than if not. Ethics have to do with integrity. You cannot be happy --or at least have a clear consciousness-- if you have no integrity or when you are breaking that integrity. And integrity is for everyone: the slave and the master, the poor and the rich, loser or winner.

It is of course good to seek to act ethically because you are forced to --you are afraid to be punished or you are forced because it is requested by your religion or society or parents or company or whatever else-- but this does not mean that you are really an ethical person, because all this requires effort. Really ethical actions do not require effort. They are done naturally, effortlessly. They are the outcome of inherent ethical values and qualities.

What is happiness? Synonymous to happiness is joy, cheerful, euphoric, wellbeing and etc. It's a feeling. It's not a state of mind.

Happiness is unrelated to your philosophy. You can be a miserable optimist and a beaming, happy pessimist. It all depends on the chemicals in your brain; Dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin.

Your well-being of a happiness-inducing brain chemistry depends mostly on genetics and on external factors that still have an effect on our neurochemistry since we were apes. One of these external factors are how high your position is on the dominance hierarchy. The higher on this hierarchy you are, the more feel good chemicals your nervous system releases. It's an ancient natural mechanism that most complex living beings have to make winners feel better, live longer and be healthier and makes losers the opposite.

Your brain is a machine, a system. The only difference is it's made of bio-organic matter and not from plastic and metal, like say a computer is. If a computer doesn't have enough electrical supply, then no matter what operational system you put in it, it still won't run.

It's the same with the brain. No matter what thoughts pass through, they have absolutely no effect on your emotional state, thinking otherwise is factually incorrect, although many bookselling moneymakers will try to convince you otherwise.