Why great moral leaders are blind

Great moral leaders need to be intelligent. The more intelligent a person is, the more likely he believes in Moral Relativism, preventing him from believing and hence preaching that anything is fundamentally good or bad. To have an uncharacteristic, blind moral drive, an intelligent person must have had something significant blocking his formative mental development. Maybe mommy touched him, or it wasn't water daddy was drinking from his hip flask, or he didn't get enough to eat every night, or he experienced daily racism, or he got raped. In the absence of any significant trauma, minds develop ivory towers in proportion to their intelligence. Mine is in the clouds by now. What, did you think I'm at my computer right now?

Another corollary to this line of thought: intelligence is fully capable of doing profound good and profound bad, though in the simplest situation it does neither.

A conclusion that this line of thought cannot make is anything about artists, since artists deny any serious quantification or existence of their intelligence. If they weren't artists, I'm sure they would be intelligent. Just somewhere along the way they chanced to fall in love instead of building an ivory tower. More specifically, they weren't deceived to think that they could realize love from an ivory tower: if the philosophers had read more literature, they would have known there is no edaneres.

At this point, as most self-infatuated essay writers would, I might give examples justifying my point, since I obviously believe I wrote something profound. I could revel more in myself, and imagine that others would too, in them reading more of what I write. But if you haven't understood yet, examples won't help, and people won't read them anyways. Especially since I would have to use one paragraph per example, and most people don't read the middle of paragraphs, unless it has a word like Sex. I'd rather revel in myself instead by admiring how accurately I can construct a circle.