> [Krimel] > And yet you frequently argue from the point of view of the superiority of > your particular culture and its particular set of moral codes. But I would > agree to some extent with the idea that it is better to exist than not.
[Platt] I argue for the superiority of a particular culture based on Pirsig's moral hierarchy, as he explained: "A culture that supports the dominance of social values over biological values is an absolutely superior culture to one that does not, and a culture that supports the dominance of intellectual values over social values is absolutely superior to one that does not. It is immoral to speak against a people because of the color of their skin, or any other genetic characteristic because these are not changeable and don't matter anyway. But it is not immoral to speak against a person because of his cultural characteristics if those cultural characteristics are-immoral. These are changeable and they do matter." (Lila, 24) In other words, I think multiculturism based on the premise that all cultures are morally equal is bunk, the British teacher in Sudan facing 6 months in prison and 40 lashes for allowing her class to name a teddy bear Mohammed being a current case in point. [Krimel] I find judging the actions of people in one culture by the standards of another culture to be about the most morally reprehensible thing I can imagine. >From the stand point of evolution diversity is in some sense THE highest good. It represents freedom and a broader range of options. When circumstances undergo change diversity of options is often the difference between existence continuing and existence ending. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
