Are smart people superior?

Smart people are not inherently superior in a moral sense, though the concept of superiority tied to intelligence is a contentious topic in public discourse.

Public Discourse on Intelligence and Superiority

The question of whether smart people are superior often hinges on the definition of "superiority" and the context in which it is applied—whether moral, social, or empirical. Public discourse reveals a deep divide between those who argue for inherent differences in human worth based on intelligence and those who maintain that moral worth or human dignity is independent of cognitive ability. This debate frequently intersects with broader discussions on equality, social utility, and the ethical implications of acknowledging human differences.

One perspective, articulated by Nathan Cofnas, suggests that intelligence can be linked to a form of superiority, at least in terms of social utility or instrumental value. Cofnas argues that intelligence is both intrinsically and instrumentally valuable, proposing that, all else being equal, higher intelligence correlates with greater "moral worth" in certain contexts, such as decision-making in life-or-death scenarios[1]. He challenges the notion that human worth is uniformly distributed, pointing to vast disparities in cognitive abilities as evidence of differing capacities for contributing to societal good[1].

In contrast, Joel Carini counters this view, asserting that intelligence does not equate to moral superiority. Carini emphasizes a distinction between social utility, moral worth of actions, and human dignity, arguing that while intelligence may confer social utility, it does not inherently elevate one's moral standing. He posits that the moral worth of actions is inversely proportional to natural endowments, meaning that praiseworthy behavior is tied to effort rather than innate capacity[2][4]. Furthermore, Carini defends the concept of human dignity as an equal, non-scalar attribute inherent to all individuals, irrespective of intelligence[2][4].

Bo Winegard presents a more empirical stance, highlighting the undeniable reality of human inequality in traits like intelligence, athletic ability, and other capacities. Winegard critiques egalitarian ideals that deny such differences, suggesting that while political equality is tenable, empirical equality is not. He argues that recognizing differences in intelligence does not necessitate denying political or legal equality, but rather calls for an honest discussion free from moral obfuscation[3].

Lionel Page addresses the political implications often tied to discussions of human differences, particularly through the lens of evolutionary theory. He notes that evolutionary explanations for traits like intelligence are frequently misconstrued as justifications for inequality or discrimination, a misstep historically associated with "social Darwinism." Page argues that evolutionary theory itself carries no moral imperatives and should not be used to justify political ideologies of superiority or inferiority[5].

The public discourse, as reflected in these sources, often oscillates between empirical observations of intelligence differences and normative claims about human worth. On one side, there are those like Cofnas who see intelligence as a factor in assessing worth in specific contexts, while on the other, thinkers like Carini and Murray (as cited by Cofnas) reject any direct link between IQ and moral superiority, emphasizing universal dignity or the irrelevance of intelligence to intrinsic value[1][2]. This tension is further complicated by societal taboos around discussing inequality, as Winegard notes, which can stifle open dialogue and conflate distinct types of equality—empirical, moral, and political[3].

Ultimately, the debate remains unresolved, with significant disagreement on whether intelligence confers any form of superiority. The discourse reveals a broader struggle to balance the recognition of human differences with the ethical commitment to equality, a challenge that continues to shape public and academic conversations on this topic.

Sources

[1] Cofnas, Nathan. "Are Smart People Superior? A Reply to Noah Carl and Charles Murray." Nathan Cofnas’s Newsletter, April 26, 2024. (https://ncofnas.com/p/are-smart-people-superior-a-reply) - Argues that intelligence correlates with a form of worth or superiority in certain contexts, emphasizing its instrumental value.
[2] Carini, Joel. "Equality Is Moral, Not Mathematical." Joel Carini Substack, April 30, 2024. (https://joelcarini.substack.com/p/equality-is-moral-not-mathematical) - Defends the idea of moral equality as independent of empirical differences like intelligence, rooted in human dignity.
[3] Winegard, Bo. "Created Unequal." Aporia Magazine, January 31, 2024. (https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/created-unequal) - Highlights empirical inequalities in intelligence and other traits, advocating for political equality while rejecting empirical equality.
[4] Carini, Joel. "Is Human Worth Normally Distributed?" Aporia Magazine, May 14, 2024. (https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/is-human-worth-normally-distributed) - Critiques the notion that intelligence equates to moral worth, distinguishing between social utility, moral actions, and dignity.
[5] Page, Lionel. "No, Evolutionary Theory Does Not Justify Your Worst Political Nightmare." Optimally Irrational, January 6, 2025. (https://open.substack.com/pub/lionelpage/p/no-evolutionary-theory-does-not-justify) - Argues that evolutionary explanations for differences like intelligence carry no inherent moral or political implications.

Suggested Sources[edit]