We infer (which is a skill) and interpret (which is an even more challenging skill) what others (some are, what you are implying, “smart” and some not so. And these inferences and interpretations should be, to my small mind, rooted in more than their opinions (and by opinions I mean the results of thought, not a substitute therefor). I’m sure we agree that this is not always the case. Be that as it may, this does not mean that we cannot gain a stronger, perhaps clearer, understanding of what they are saying if we are open enough and willing enough to make the sizeable effort needed to attain that.
However, your following statement is a non sequiter. There may still be a “supermind” and there could be “superhumans”, and there might be something we could call a “Noosphere”. Just because some smart people are sometimes stupid (where I would say they simply overshoot their intelligence), it does not follow that ALL smart people suffer from this malady.
If you mean by “amoral”, “free of morals”, then I’m with you. Without human beings, there is no notion of “morality”, but I’m not clear on what morals has to do with “smart”, “inalienable rights”, what constitutes a “person”, or “equality”. Once those notions are clarified and agreed, we can start thinking about potential “shoulds”.