• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does ability change a person's intrinsic value?

Does ability change a person's value?

  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
sookster said:
Is IQ the only measurement of ability? Doesn't it measure only one type of intelligence? I know for a fact modern science considers there to be multiple intelligence. So for example, empaths, are people that can literally "feel" what another person is feeling while they communicate with them, and a lot of them have social anxiety disorder. I think these people think there are something wrong with them simply because they have an "ability" that others do not.
Click to expand...
IQ tests measure many things.
FYI, what most people are referring to/crucial is..
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=iq+g+factor

sookster said:
But we seem to correlate intelligence to economic output, which isn't surprising given our culture. However, considering there are multiple intelligence, and that IQ scores do not measure all of them, is it not possible for someone to be intelligent and have ability but not be as economically strong because of the time we live in? For example, painters during the Renaissance.
Click to expand...
Not really.
We are talking about intellectual ability/output.
ie, Chess Masters don't have much economic output, but alot of abstract intelligence.


sookster said:
Then there is to consider what "ability" or "intelligence" is derived from. Nature vs. Nurture right? Some people just don't have a chance to work at Google because of what they were born with, while others won't have that opportunity because of the neighborhood they live in even if they had the ability.
Click to expand...
IQ is app 75% Heritable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ#Estimates_of_the_heritability_of_IQ


sookster said:
Could it be argued that everyone has some sort of intelligence to offer the world? I know a guy that works at the Wal-Mart docks, and his social skills are amazing. Everyone likes him, and I can talk to him with complete ease like everyone else. That may not land him the 1 million dollar job, but I would say that still makes him valuable. I would argue that different intelligence gets the spotlight so to speak in different eras.
Click to expand...
Not very valuable. We have an excess of manual labor people, when higher ability ones are who create jobs, not just take them.
But he he sounds like a credit to society.


sookster said:
What I am saying is I think people have different value, as to what they bring to the table of humanity, and certain traits gets more value based upon society at that time. However, I think everyone should be treated the same, regardless of their value, especially considering the minority of people that have the optimal circumstances of upbringing, and how society refuses to fix that issue based upon ideological reasons.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You never know who you're shaking hands with.
Many have received the Medal of Honor without a 3 digit IQ, and they are heroes to us all.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Sometimes other factors affect the results as well.

I know someone who tested at a 70 on an official IQ test, which is borderline intellectual disability -- similar to your average person with Down's Syndrome. I assure you, she is not intellectually disabled.

She is quite bright. But her ability is very unevenly distributed. She is gifted in some things, and has a learning disability others. As it just so happens, her areas of disability do a lot of damage on things like IQ tests.

She has had all the education a person could hope for, and was intelligent enough to do a hell of a lot with it. She was read to as a young child. She went to a good school district. She graduated with honors from a prestigious private university. She has a high-powered career at a marketing firm and she gets promotions practically every other week.
But she was also in special ed because she sees numbers backwards, and she could not do her job without a calculator for even relatively simple equations.
People like her are completely out in the cold on things like IQ tests.
In terms of measuring objective intelligence, IQ tests function best for people with both ideal education and relatively equal ability across all areas. But there are many, many people who don't align with either one or both of those things.
Click to expand...
Inspirational, but surely you know this is debate by anecdote/Exception. In fact, that Is what makes it remarkable.
Most with a 70 IQ are giant drains on society be it jobless, homeless, jailed, or taken care of by family members.
 
mbig said:
Inspirational, but surely you know this is debate by anecdote/Exception. In fact, that Is what makes it remarkable.
Most with a 70 IQ are giant drains on society be it jobless, homeless, jailed, or taken care of by family members.
Click to expand...

What I'm pointing out is that IQ tests give inaccurate results for people with learning disabilities. And many people with learning disabilities actually have genius intelligence.

She is objectively not mentally disabled. Therefore, she cannot possibly have an objective IQ of 70. So, something is wrong with the test.
 
Simple physical characteristics can be impetus for institutional discrimination. Doesn't matter what their intellect or skills may be. Institutional discrimination is a huge problem. And the reason can be because someone doesn't like the eye color of another. We live in a crazy world.

The answer to the OP is so incredibly complicated. So many variables involved.
 
sookster said:
Another way to ask it, is if someone has more ability than that person, is he "more" of a person? It doesn't have to be pertained to money, unless you think it should be.

Poll is public. What say ye?
Click to expand...

At base, all humans are equal, so it can't change any intrinsic value.
 
faithful_servant said:
I voted "Yes", but that would be a highly qualified "Yes". Ability does change a person's value, but it does not define it. It is one of a whole lot of different things that determine a person's value, not the least of which is the fact that they are a living human being (which accounts for the vast majority of their value).
Click to expand...

We should be happy that humans exhibit a variety of talents and interests. If everyone was upset that they were not designing rockets, practicing law or winning awards in Hollywood then we would all suffer. Be thankful that many are quite content to pave a roadway, build a fence/deck, play in a bar band, work in a cabinet shop, flip a burger, run a cash register or care for the nation's lawns and cars.
 
I say it's irrelevant because nobody has any intrinsic value to begin with.
 
Yes, absolutely. Our value as human beings rests solely on what we contribute to other human beings' lives. We are our deeds.
 
Nah. A person's intrinsic value has to do with sentience, the capacity to feel, having attitudes about the world (intentionality). A disabled person experiencing suffering isn't somehow less bad than a genius experiencing suffering.

Where 'ability' comes into the equation is in consequences. Nobody exists in a vacuum, in isolation to the rest of the world. When evaluating ethical choices (for example, if you can only save one person from an oncoming train do you save the orphan quadriplegic or the gifted surgeon who regularly donates his blood which contains a unique anti-body that is used to manufacture a rare medicine that prevents a horrific children's disease.....:lol:) what matters is not just the immediate parties involved but the broader external consequences as well. Saving the surgeon with the rare anti-body makes ethical sense not because the surgeon is worth more intrinsically than the orphan but because of what the consequences will be if the surgeon dies (children will fall ill with the horrific disease, etc.). It's tempting for some to say that this amounts to the surgeon "being worth more". But it's simply a category error to attribute the ethical weight of the extrinsic consequences of a person's actions as somehow being intrinsic to the person.
 
most people would say no, but then they go and fap over celebrities to no end
 
Luke Skywalker said:
I wouldn't necessarily say so. A person can have all the talent, looks, smarts, etc. - but if they do nothing with it, they basically become nothing. On the flip side, look at Helen Keller - she lacked the ability to see and hear, but did great things and will be remembered for centuries to come. A lack of "ability," imo, can certainly be overcome with persistence and hard work.

I think it's all about what we do with what we are given/born with - that's what ultimately makes us "more" of a person. I think it was Edison who said: "Greatness is 10% inspiration and 90& perspiration." Or, something like that. :)
Click to expand...

Also, a person can have all that talent and money and just be a horrible human being. Strength of character weighs very heavily.
 
Intrinsic value is best related to self preservation. That the vast majority of all life expresses this behavior, is a fact of reality.
So in that context no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom