I'm going to make a bold and potentially offensive claim regarding what I am beginning to suspect is the proper measure of intelligence.

Observe that (1) all the world is a series of physical events, that nothing known to be of our environment does not involve, at its base, simple rearrangements of energy and matter.

Observe that (2) the only way to describe and understand these events in their entirety is through a rigorous and systematic series of logical statements and that these statements describe numeric qualities (distance, time, mass, volume, energy, velocity, quantity, probability, etc.), i.e. mathematics.

Observe that (3) intelligence is a measure of one's capacity to understand and perform in one's environment.

Observe that (4) in order to understand and operate in one's environment on a conscious basis, one needs some integrated capacity to make these logical statements in estimation, and an increased systematization of these statements allows for greater precision and depth of understanding and thus for a greater range of performance.

Given these points, I will assert that the purest measure of intelligence is one's inclination toward mathematical thought and aptitude for performing mathematical calculations.

Someone countered, in opposition to this, that they can survive plainly and happily without the slightest hint of mathematical knowledge and do not need to perform mathematical calculations in order to demonstrate their intelligence. In defending against this refutation, I must stress that math is not just an exercise for those who are fully conscious that they are performing it.

We perform math on a rudimentary, non-rigorous and unsystematic basis every instant of our waking lives, mostly subconsciously and occasionally consciously. It is present in our brains as we calculate distances, assess proportion, seek out symmetry, recognize patterns, intuit probability, and perform simple counting exercises. These are all integral parts of our ability to comprehend and interact with our world and is hence the primary component of our intelligence. I would go further to assert that an even deeper and even more systematic comprehension and utilization of mathematical principles is indicative of yet higher degrees of intelligence.

Mo-ral-i-ty , n. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

I find my definition of it more useful and of equivalent meaning: “a framework of principles by which it is determined how one should act.”

I am profoundly morally minded, and who should not be? If it is the means by which one determines how one should act, it follows that everyone should be concerned about it in determining their actions, but it is clear that not everyone is.

I can detect in the people around me two different views on morality. There are those who believe that it is universal and objective for being dictated to man by characters of authority. Others believe that morality is baseless and subjective, that it has no reason for being outside of cultural opinion and hence is profoundly able to be disregarded.

My perspective on morality is of a different kind. Morality is not arbitrarily dictated, such as by higher powers, nor is it formed exclusively by willful and personal views. Properly exercised morality is not an end to which man must live up to, nor is it something that man may disregard and still thrive; it is a means to the ends of man, a tool to achieve his goals and a guidance for what those goals must be.

The thing that truly makes morality authoritative is logic, or rather, a consistency between premise and reliably inferred conclusion, to include the validity of the premise. I have been told that there is no logic in morality. If that were the case, since morality is a means to determine how one should act, the implication would be that there are no logical actions, or at least not actions that can be realized through logic. This is of course not the case. If we arbitrarily accept a goal, logical inference is perfectly suited for determining a route by which to meet that goal, if it can be met; hence it is by logic that we can determine how we ought to act towards an end.

It is the apparent flexibility of the end that makes morality relevant to each individual and their own interests. That does not mean that morality can be fitted towards any end, which logical inference will then loyally carry it to. The ends that we are appealing to are things that we value. In order, however, for our morality to not collapse under its own weight, the things that we place value in and work towards must not contradict each other or undermine our own rationale for valuing them. If one analyzes the rationale behind many of our decisions, it becomes apparent that there are self-evident values that, by definition, must be present in any decision making individual. When all is accounted for, there is an empowering flexibility to morality and what one’s principle values may be, but the logic underlying the distribution of values leaves some ends indefensible by rationale.

I conclude thus that there is a moral foundation applicable to everyone, that morality has aspects that are both universal and personal.