No.

that’s a long way around to find your ‘finding.’ Immoral would be connected to a religious requirement. Not appropriate except at a divinity school. . . .
BTW, only humans have a mind? Where did you read that? The animal world is full of animals that actually think. Most lack communication skills.

@dgee
There is an objective basis for moral evaluation, and you know it. If you do not know it, then it means you are in high school, in which case I understand. I actually liked high school.

Wow, I have an even harder time following the wandering logic and word choices of this question than your last one. Curious—where is this thinking coming from?

Stupidity doesn’t seem to me to be the failure to develop the mind. It seems to me to be the failure to develop an open mind, the failure to be accepting of all information without judgement, the failure to utilize all facts at hand, the failure to accept facts as facts, the failure of accepting belief as fact in the face of provable facts.

Doing the right thing is subjective. In one belief system, the right thing is to let nature take its course. In another belief system, the right thing is to encourage nature to take a particular course.

From the point of view of the first belief system the second is stupid, and vice versa. Neither may be stupid in actuality, as they are working with all the facts they have and may have no knowledge of other facts.

The philosophy you present Josie is a constant theme throughout history.

Jesus cursed and wilted the fig tree for not being what it was supposed to be.

Jesus tells another story where two men are given fortunes to manage while their master was away. Upon the master’s return, he asked each about their endeavors. The first had invested wisely, and making a profit, he was praised and rewarded. The second hid the fortune away to save it from harm. He was punished because his task was to manage the fortune, not to hide it away serving no purpose.

Driving by St. Louis City downtown main library, it is etched in stone everywhere with quotes from great thinkers who insist that poverty is curable through education, and good literacy.

I think much of what you allude to can be traced back to fear. Stupidity may be a form of fear. A fear of stepping out of your mental comfort zone to discover the world doesn’t work the way you thought it did. Some suggest that “fear of the unknown” is given to us at birth, when experiencing leaving the comfort of the womb and entering into a new cold world that begins with a slap and a cry and asks much more of us that mommy’s tummy ever did.

Terrence McKenna furthers this notion with a quote I’ll close on.
“Nature loves courage. You make the commitment and nature will respond to that commitment by removing impossible obstacles. Dream the impossible dream and the world will not grind you under, it will lift you up. This is the trick. This is what all these teachers and philosophers who really counted, who really touched the alchemical gold, this is what they understood. This is the shamanic dance in the waterfall. This is how magic is done. By hurling yourself into the abyss and discovering its a feather bed.”
― Terence McKenna

No it is stupid to be immoral.

That’s a nice phrase, witty to the OP, but I’m not sure I follow the logic behind it @talljasperman.

I can see the objective reasoning behind an idea that we have:
…a moral obligation to be as thoughtful as we can be.

But I can only grasp a subjective reasoning behind the idea that we have:
… a thoughtful obligation to be as moral as we can be.

No one can live an entire life of thoughtlessness and not hurt themselves, or others, or be punished for doing so.

But some can and do live their entire life in immorality, without necessarily hurting themselves, or others (beyond subjectivity), or necessarily being punished for living immorally. I may disagree with immorality. But surely we have different definitions for it. I cannot therefor accept that immorality is necessarily thoughtless or stupid.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies When one knows better than it is wrong.. If one doesn’t know what they are doing then they should be wise enough not to act until you can find someone , like a psychologist guide to help. Fool’s and idiots exempt from blame in certain religions.

I agree that ignorance is no excuse.

Would you not agree that some folks are quite immoral, and pursue their immorality very intelligently?

” Lots of critters have a brain.
Only humans have a mind. ”

Wrong. Self awareness and theory of mind are rather well supported in other organism aside from human organisms.

” If a mind is not developed, the result is stupidity. ”

Not always. Some brains are intellectually challenged and of limited amelioration.

” Is it immoral to be stupid? ”

Skipping your syllogism, which is illogical, no.

Lots of people are stupid without intending to be, they just aren’t the sharpest spoons in the drawer, as we say where I work. It’s not immoral if stupid is what you have as talent.

It is immoral to not develop or use the mind you’re given.

No. I strongly disagree.
Stupidity is not immoral.
Are turkeys immoral because they are not as intelligent as dolphins?
They are intelligent enough to be turkeys, so that is all that really matters.

Besides, “stupid” is subjective.
Someone might have considered some of the risks and expenditures in my past as “stupid.”
I chose to work part time for 8 years and spend most my savings in order to live in the moment and really in-joy my life. ( This economy fucked up my plans but…)
Those days are over, but was I “stupid” to take the time and spend my money while I was still young enough to enjoy it?

I think not.

You might disagree, but who cares!
I didn’t miss the slow boat to China, I took it! lol

Uh, der?

@Neodarwinian “Wrong. Self awareness and theory of mind are rather well supported in other organism aside from human organisms.”

Aside from humans, do you know of any other “organism” which facilitates abstract reasoning to the extent that it can imagine making itself into a better organism than what it currently is?

Can it think beyond itself?

@Neodarwinian “Some brains are intellectually challenged and of limited amelioration.”

No doubt. Animals aside, some humans are so intellectually challenged that they cannot fathom thinking beyond their current self. Society steps in, usually on moral grounds, to assist them in doing so. I have a mentally handicapped uncle. Without his group home environment, he would be a blithering idiot, literally unable to speak, and very violent. But society has provided for him in a manner which enables him to have a very low paying job, and experience the world with field trips. He has learned to communicate in limited fashion. His life is as fulfilling as it is capable of being. He is smarter because of the morality that society expresses upon him.

@Neodarwinian ”...your syllogism, which is illogical…”

From the position that @josie presented it, I found it very logical. Its logic only breaks down when analyzed from the fallacious burdens you foist upon it. I do not believe that when @josie claimed that only humans have minds, that he meant no other organism was capable of expressing mindfulness. I believe he intended that no other organism could express the mindfulness of humans, capable of expressing such notions as morality and intelligence. That seemed obvious to me.

Being immoral means you know you’re being a dick. If you’re stupid, then you don’t know you’re being a dick, at least by definition, so it’s not immoral, even if everything you do is immoral. I think you have to be aware of it for it not to be immoral by proxy, or something.
Then again that’s not really how the world works, is it? I mean, you can be smart, and think you’re doing the right thing, although you’re being a butt sack. We’re all terrorists in the eyes of other terrorists and shit, that kinda thing. The world is not black and white, is it? I mean, it’s black and white if you just kill some guy with an axe for the lulz, but it isn’t if you’re Vlad Tepes, and just trying to secure your kingdom. Fuck I denno, I’m too stupid. :D

Stupidity is a byproduct of ignorance which usually comes from apathy. Lazy people are generally useless to society. I’ve known people that aren’t very bright but I wouldn’t consider them to be stupid at all. I’ve also known really smart people who just don’t care about themselves enough to try to make things better. It could be immoral to be stupid depending on the circumstances I suppose. Interesting question. I shall have to ponder upon it some more.

First, define stupidity. If it is wilfull ignorance, I’m inclined to agree with your premise, that stupidity is immoral. But if it is either simply ignorance, or the inability to learn, then I disagree.

You say here that “stupidity is the failure to develop the mind”. I think the reason for that failure is what decides whether morality is involved. Is that failure a choice, or not?

@glacial I agree…wilfull ignorance implies one CAN learn/change/grow but stubbornly chooses not to.
“Stupidity” implies an innate inability to learn and/or evolve.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

” Aside from humans, do you know of any other “organism” which facilitates abstract reasoning to the extent that it can imagine making itself into a better organism than what it currently is? ”

” Can it think beyond itself? ”

That criteria, the first sentence, is not the criteria that defines mind. Looks like your definition and I, plus many cognitive scientist I suppose ( at least from what they have stated ), do not accept it. I suggest you review the literature here.

The second sentence is covered in theory of mind. I suggest you Goggle ’ theory of mind. ’

I won’t address the second paragraph because I do not think you understood this; ” Some brains are intellectually challenged and of limited amelioration. ”

” From the position that @josie presented it, I found it very logical. Its logic only breaks down when analyzed from the fallacious burdens you foist upon it. ”

” { Stupidity is the failure to develop the mind.
Therefore, stupidity is the failure to do “the right thing”.
Therefore, stupidity is immoral.
Correct? } ”

This is logical to you?!? I foisted something you call fallacious burdens on this?!? This syllogism fails on it’s own ” merits. ”

I think you better go back to the drawing board here!

@Neodarwinian “That criteria, the first sentence, is not the criteria that defines mind.”

I never said it was a definition. I presented it as a property of human mindfulness.

@Neodarwinian “Looks like your definition…”

Not a definition. A property of human mindfulness, separate and apart from other “organisms”, as you put it.

@Neodarwinian “I won’t address the second paragraph because I do not think you understood this”

If I didn’t understand it, then why not address it? I presented an example of how I understood it based upon the limited sentence you provided. I even agreed with you saying “No doubt”, and then presented an example of why I agreed, and how it is tied to the “morality” suggested in the OP.

So, what’s not to understand here? What am I missing? How did my example not fit the criteria of your statement?

And seriously, in the spirit of the OP, would refusal to “address the second paragraph” not be an immoral act if based upon your thinking that I did not “understand this” from the position you enjoy? Similar to human services helping my uncle out of a moral duty, instead of allowing him to remain stupid. Will you allow me to remain stupid to your position? Or even worse, would you silently consider me stupid without actually saying it? Consider the morality of that please.

@Neodarwinian “This is logical to you?!?”
Stupidity is the failure to develop the mind.
Therefore, stupidity is the failure to do “the right thing”.
Therefore, stupidity is immoral.

Yes, even more so now. If you possess knowledge that I do not, and consider me stupid because of it, then as I express a desire to develop my mind, in order to do the right thing, and you are the vehicle to accomplish such a task, then my stupidity may be resting on the shoulders of your immorality. You can fix this by “doing the right thing” and schooling me with more detail to your position.

For what I’ve discovered thus far of your “Theory of Mind” has done nothing more than convince me further that it is a subjective notion. As the Wiki clearly states:
“The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of his/her own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. It is typically assumed that others have minds by analogy with one’s own, and based on the reciprocal nature of social interaction, as observed in joint attention…”

There is nothing objective here to base a theory upon, except the caveat of the next line:
“the functional use of language”…

Which contradicts the first part of the definition. As it says, “no one has direct access to the mind of another”.

Am I the only one to see the fallacy of this statement? “The functional use of language IS the mechanism which allows organisms to have “direct access to the mind of another”.

We’re doing it right now… with language.

@Neodarwinian “I suggest you review the literature here.”

Here’s some literature on Premack and Woodruffs original paper: Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later.
“Our conclusion for the moment is, thus, that chimpanzees understand others in terms of a perception-goal psychology, as opposed to a full-fledged, human-like belief-desire psychology.”

This does seem to fit with my earlier assessment:
“I do not believe that when @josie claimed that only humans have minds, that he meant no other organism was capable of expressing mindfulness. I believe he intended that no other organism could express the mindfulness of humans, capable of expressing such notions as morality and intelligence.”

And let me clarify. When I say “morality and intelligence”, I don’t mean that some organisms are incapable of exhibiting such attributes in the limited manner they are capable of. What I mean is that they cannot discuss notion of “morality and intelligence” because they’re too stupid to express abstract reasoning to the same degree that humans are.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

” I never said it was a definition. I presented it as a property of human mindfulness.”

What?!? You asserted this so I assume it is defined by you.

” Aside from humans, do you know of any other “organism” which facilitates abstract reasoning to the extent that it can imagine making itself into a better organism than what it currently is? ”

If this is your presentation ( never heard of it before ) then you just defined it.

” how it is tied to the “morality” suggested in the OP. ”

That is where you did not understand it. Ties in where?!?

” And seriously, in the spirit of the OP, would refusal to “address the second paragraph” not be an immoral act if based upon your thinking that I did not “understand this” from the position you enjoy? ”

Philosophical games?!?

I suggest you lay off the wik definitions.

” Premack and Woodruffs ”

Gee, a whole study!

Your verbosity is taking me off the deep end of philosophical mumbo jumbo and if you see this…,

{Stupidity is the failure to develop the mind.
Therefore, stupidity is the failure to do “the right thing”.
Therefore, stupidity is immoral.
Correct?}

as a valid syllogism why don’t you talk directly to the questioner and leave me out of it.

You would have to have a choice for it to be immoral, else you are natural like an animal. The wolf who kills a caribou is feeding not murdering.

An assertion is not a definition.

@Neodarwinian “If this is your presentation ( never heard of it before ) then you just defined it.”

Presentations and definitions don’t end with question marks. It was a simple question. I’ll ask it again.
“Aside from humans, do you know of any other “organism” which facilitates abstract reasoning to the extent that it can imagine making itself into a better organism than what it currently is?”

@Neodarwinian “That is where you did not understand it. Ties in where?!?”

Restating that I don’t understand doesn’t answer my question. I want to know how I don’t understand. And my uncle’s example “ties in” because society helps him develop his mind out of a moral obligation… which is exactly what the OP speaks of.

@Neodarwinian “I suggest you lay off the wik definitions.”

You told me to look it up. Was there a specific page I was supposed to find? Does your definition of “Theory of Mind” differ from the well cited Wiki page?

@Neodarwinian “Gee, a whole study!”

More than what you’ve offered in a sarcastic accusing opinion. Which shall I lay my trust upon?

@Neodarwinian “Your verbosity is taking me off the deep end of philosophical mumbo jumbo…”

Philosophical roots… Contemporary discussions of ToM have their roots in philosophical debate—most broadly, from the time of Descartes’ Second Meditation, which set the groundwork for considering the science of the mind.

It was your suggestion friend.

@Neodarwinian …“leave me out of it.”

That my friend will be up to you. I would appreciate an answer to my questions though.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

Then stop asking ill posed question and backing a losing horse; the questioner.

We are through here as this, ” You told me to look it up. Was there a specific page I was supposed to find? Does your definition of “Theory of Mind” differ from the well cited Wiki page?, ” is just disingenuous. Theory of mind returns uncountable entries and the wiki definition is as lacking as philosophical game play.

Find someone else to play with. Bye.

Come on people now
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
and love one another right now
right now

@DWW25921
Beware, beware of the handshake that hides a snake.
Now is the snake stupid or just immoral?

@Neodarwinian “Then stop asking ill posed question…”

What is ill posed about my question?

How is asking about the Wiki page compared to your views disingenuous?

Is it really necessary for me to go through “uncountable entries” in order to figure out what you’re talking about?

Why accuse me of game playing after speaking of losing horses? You accuse me of being disingenuous and ill posed yet avoid every question.

Some might call that guilty talk.

But I just think you’re full of shit.

@Coloma
Beware, beware of the handshake that hides a snake.
Now is the snake stupid or just immoral?

As I asked @talljasperman… ”...some folks are quite immoral, and pursue their immorality very intelligently…”

The snake is intelligent and immoral, in the context you present. But he is not immoral because of his intelligence. He is immoral because of his greed and deception.

That’s not the same as refusing to develop the mind as being immoral, as @josie suggests.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I was being humorous but good explanation anyway. Ssssss.

Wikipedia defines stupidity as a lack of intelligence, understanding, reason, wit, or sense. So there is a part that can be seen as immoral, for example a lack of understanding of things based on laziness (why listen to a teacher at school).