The concept of IQ, or Intelligence Quotient is well known to many people as a measure of basic, innate human intelligence; the ability to dope out very basic patterns, essentially. While there remains some controversy over the merits of the actual measurements used to arrive at the relevant numbers, the basic idea that there are differences in intellectual magnitude between individuals is well accepted across a broad cross section of the human population.
I would now like to introduce the idea of two more measures: The Moral Quotient (MQ), and the Smarts Quotient (SQ). I would like to think of these as close analogs to the IQ assessment, only relating to a man's "moral intelligence", and that for his smarts, respectively. The latter, of course, is as yet something of problematic, given that the body of human knowledge is so large. This raises the question of for what shall we test? Knowledge of physics? Machining? Painting? Farming? Medicine? Professional wrestling? I would suggest that the useful bit in determining SQ would lie in establishing a method for calculating a normalized score for knowledge on any given narrowly defined body of knowledge such as the Principles of Proper Human Relations, for example.
As for MQ, that is a slightly different issue in that it is a far narrower channel. We must obviously begin by choosing the standard of measure. There are many who would complain and wave their hands in dire and urgent warning that such a standard could never be objective, nor could everyone agree upon it. To the first objection I say "nonsense!" The Principles of Proper Human Relations are a very likely candidate for such a standard, seeing as they recognize the inherent sovereignty of the individual whose rights are sacrosanct, save when one is committing a crime against one or more of his fellows. As for the wailing and the gnashing of teeth over the claim that not everyone would stand in agreement with such a standard, of course they would not, and that it matters no whit. The hard core criminal objects to the standards of criminal Law. After all, who would expect him to cheer for and accept and abide by it? He is, after all, a criminal. Does anyone of sound mind, reason, and moral makeup care whether criminals object? No.
In an analogous vein, those whose moral senses are objectively and demonstrably failed cannot be taken seriously as to their opinions on such matters. Would anyone wish to give heed to the opinions of a pederast; of one who condones the violation of the rights of some human beings? Methinks not. And so we can readily see that not all opinions on the matter are valid, meaning that the indigestion of such people are inconsequential to the issue and may be validly set aside.
Imagine being able to measure a man's MQ and SQ and have the numbers publicly available of those people seeking to run for public office. If the measures were reliably and predictably accurate, it could go a long way toward dissuading the wanker wannabe tyrants from bothering in the first place, and failing that, providing a trustworthy starting point from which voters could make their choices.
It is just an idea, but I thought I would toss it out there to give you all something about which to think. Imagine making it a requirement that all candidates for any government position take such tests, as well as that of basic personality types. Naturally, the viability of such things would necessarily require the honest and competent administration of such assessments, but if we assume it for conversation's sake, perhaps it might give voters and edge against the scoundrels.
That's it for now. Until next time, please accept my best wishes.
No comments:
Post a Comment