[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This pulls back the curtain on the idea that the society's most intelligent will make better ethical decisions. I am not saying stupid, uneducated people would be superior.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
The Soviet Union was anti-religious/atheistic.
Were they better decision makes/more ethical as you theorize?
Someone with a better understanding of history then me needs to step in here. I believe my point is still valid but am curious to hear more.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's hard to hit a moving target. You started out on intelligence and ethics , and then threw in some religion and group politics. You're saying that all people would be equally ethical in their decisions? ( that roughly follows from your - intelligent ones don't make better nor will stupid ones). What does the soviet union have to do with that, or any other political example. The odds of a political group being in the top 20% of intelligence is quite small, it's not a field that attracts intelligence it's field that attracts powermongers.

Decisions made by a group don't equate to decisions made by an individual, partly because the group gets pulled toward the lowest common denominator, partly because the some of the gang can be pretty sick bastards but they offer something the group needs ( a specific voting block, serious money, the right friends, etc). by the time you get to the top you have tied in with Fredo, Sonny and Luca Brassi.

So group examples don’t work well. Individually perhaps we could look at the crime rate among the top 10% of intelligence and the bottom 10%, or some measure of individual action ( I’d want other conditions in place before I used the crime rate example).

Maybe you could clarify/simplify your claim.

Thanks, luckyme