[Platt] You mean that a natural phenomena like a tornado that destroyed a tree is immoral? What moral choice does the tree have?
[Arlo] Within the inorganic level, the inorganic patterns of the tornado are behaving morally. It is only from the vantage of the MOQ that we pass judgement and say that its immoral for inorganic patterns to dominate biological patterns. But this immorality is placed, according the MOQ, at the conflict between the inorganic and biological levels. And so we can say that for the tree, although it is incapable of expressing this in abstract thought, it is "immoral" for the tornado to destroy it. But for the tornado, from its vantage point on the inorganic level, it is behaving perfectly in a perfect moral fashion. To get more detailed, we can say that it is not immoral for the tree not to move away, since it is physically incapable of doing such. However, it would be immoral for a wolf to allow itself to be destroyed by the tornado. In the same way it is immoral for social patterns to be destroyed by biological patterns, or intellectual patterns to be destroyed by social patterns. Immorality occurs at the border between levels, as a result of conflict between the levels, and it is a reflection of the values as articulated by a MOQ vantage point. There is no "immorality" within the levels, as the very definition of patterns within a level are patterns of morals. 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/
