When kids do linear algebra or they rise to the level of GM in chess within the first two decades of their lives, such people are obviously geniuses. Their intelligence is undeniable.
But it’s like moral/spiritual geniuses aren’t recognized in the same way, if at all. How come their intuitive expertise isn’t recognized so easily ?
Can you define these? I’m certainly having a hard time trying to.
Morality is a subjective set of views. How can one be better at it than another? With “spiritual” intelligence, I guess we have to define the term itself before even thinking about how to measure it.
Since you wrote this post, you probably have some idea of what a moral genius is supposed to be. Can you describe what makes a person a moral genius and maybe give an example?
But yeah, if someone came to me and called themselves a moral or spiritual genius, I’d think they’re either full of it, or insane.
Chances are they are logical geniuses claiming they’ve solved morals or social interactions.
I mean, that’s interesting in and of itself. The concept of a moral genius isn’t clear. Others have brought this up, too.
A genius is someone who generally displays some exemplary skill. Terrence Tao, for example, attended university-level mathematics courses when he was nine. Most people couldn’t have possibly have done what he did. In contrast, Pablo Picasso was also a genius, creating artistic masterpieces, among his many other talents. Many of his contemporaries didn’t achieve what he did.
So, at least we know that geniuses can be recognized as such at any point in their life, and it seems more about achieving a level of mastery or insight into their field or practice that others aren’t privy to, even other practitioners.
People keep saying morality is subjective, which is true, but so is art. Still, Picasso was recognized as genius. Still, there are widely recognized universal moral values, like don’t kill other people. So, I’m not sure moral subjectivity is sufficient to dismiss what I’m asking.
Other commenters have brought up various moral philosophers like Kant and St. Augustine. Different moral frameworks, both geniuses. Sure. The same commenter brought up Buddha, and I think that’s closer to what I’m after. Buddha attained “enlightenment” and then everybody and their god came to him for moral guidance.
I think it’s this beacon of guidance as a genius that really captures my concept of a moral genius. Like, if you’re a professional mathematician and you get stumped on a proof, you may turn to Terrence Tao to see what he thinks about resolving the apparent problem. Similarly, if you’re trying to understand some aspect of art that eludes you but you see in Picasso paintings, you might engage in-depth study of his artwork until you get what you’re trying to find.
But let’s say you’re widely understood to be at least a good person, then who do you turn to? Who is widely understood to be a morally superior person that exceeds even the normal best to which they turn? Such a person would fit my understanding of a moral genius.
And while children are often lauded for being innocent and pure, it’s like their untainted understanding of morality isn’t recognized as proper moral decision-making. In contrast, the Dalai Lama is often respected as spiritual leader, but I think that stems more from what the Dalai Lama is and the tradition around him rather than the inherent goodness of whoever is the Dalai Lama. The same goes for preachers/the Pope/etc. That might be unfair to discount them, though…idk.
Not really
So culture have the death penalty. Many would consider killing in time of war as okay. What about self-defense? Or defense of others? Is it morality wrong? What about euthenasia? Does it only applies to human? Moral is subjective.
.