Intelligence and moral beliefs: the differences and conflicts?

Common beliefs, in most circumstances, come about for two reasons. The first reason is because a belief is understandable to the general public and is popular or accepted. The second is that it is completely possible for a belief to become common because it truly is intelligently thought-through step by step.

Some beliefs cross that line of intelligence, however, and begin settling into the "moral" category. One may believe, for example, that abortion is murder because they believe a fetus is a human life and you are killing this human life. This is a morally-based belief because this person is against abortion as they think it is immoral. When you have another person whom believes that a fetus is not a human life because it has not yet been scientifically or otherwise proven, this is an intelligence-based belief. This is not to say that anti-abortion people are not intelligent; however, anti-abortion beliefs tend to be based on moral rather than factual arguments. The pro-choice belief that a fetus has not yet been proven to be a human without a reasonable doubt is intelligence based because of the fact that the human race currently does not have the intelligence to say one way or another.

There are other arguments for and against abortion, however, such as the pro-choice argument that a woman is the one holding the fetus and not vice versa, and therefore, should be given the choice to go through with the pregnancy or not. This is not an intelligence based belief; although it is true that the woman is the one harboring the fetus (and that this can be proved without a reasonable doubt), the argument is morally based because it is for the well-being of the woman, saying it is immoral to force a woman through pregnancy.

Whether a person is on one side of the fence or the other is not the point here. The point is that when one belief which is intelligently-based comes into conflict with a morally-based belief, the consequences tend to be many hard feelings and no answer to the equation. A person whom believes abortion is murder will hardly listen to an argument that a beating heart does not make up a person. A person whom doesn't believe a fetus is a living human will have an "abortion is murder" argument go through one ear and out the other. When you are debating for moral purposes, why would you listen to intelligence? Vice versa?

People tend to get into debates and/or arguments for one purpose: to win and to change the other party's mind. To truly make a difference, however, I would argue that you must enter a debate with learning in mind. Without you or the other person learning anything, what have you accomplished? Spewing out conflicting beliefs to stir anger is not an accomplishment. Learning a fact or new belief within an argument can go for you or against you; the quality of your argument will determine that.

There are many facts when it comes to moral beliefs, although it does not make the belief factual. For example, being vegan, I could spew out that more meat-eaters get anemia than vegans whom do not take in animal iron. Although this is a fact, does it make my moral reasons for being vegan factual? Of course not. My more intelligent arguments for being vegan, such as the anatomy of the human body in comparison to a true carnivore or even omnivore, the facts when it comes to diet and disease, etc., are not based on moral beliefs. And even though conflicting moral and intelligent arguments make for one hell of a long and endless debate, the two, when joined together, makes for one well thought-out and sturdy belief.