Michael, I do not have much time, but I just wanted to clarify what I meant by luxury in regard to vegetarianism, I have starved in my life, at that point hunger and biological need didn't allow me to have much of a choice, I'm not even sure if I wouldn't have resorted to cannibalism, a moral position I detest and find repulsive, but starvation reduces one to a level of desperateness of violent need. In that frame of mind, I'm not sure what I'd do or wouldn't do.
this is what I meant by the luxury of choice. -Ron ________________________________ From: Michael Poloukhine <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:04:14 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Morality, Society and the MoQ I'm changing the subject line of this tangent, hope no-one minds. I think the discussion starting on abortion probably falls under this subject heading as well, but I am reluctant to suggest merging the two. > Ron wrote: > My opinion is that the choice of vegetariansim originates in the > luxery of having food to choose from. MP: I disagree and hold a different opinion. Most vegetarians I know eat that way either for moral reasons or for nutritional ones. Not because they have lots of vegetarian options. Morality or self preservation are the originators, not luxury. Luxury, if anything does the opposite of what you say. It is what makes us *complacent* to choosing the MoQ moral way. If we aren't confronted with the immorality of killing animals to eat them through abundance and the simplicity of the supermarket shelf, its easy to ignore the original immorality. The luxury is what in fact *encourages* the *immorality* rather than anything else by burying it under its thick veneer. And oddly, the *lack* of luxury of choices is what may also *force* immorality. It is what can render vegetarianism *immoral.* Only the *lack* of such luxury is justification to take the immoral choice for one action in the interest of assuring the maintenance of a greater morality; Pirsig's example of not eating cows being the *immoral* choice in a time of famine due to shortage of wheat. But in this day of luxury, I don't see how an MoQer can not be a vegetarian and call it moral without some specific greater morality pushing them to kill and eat higher evolved life forms over lower ones. There's no famine, so its not clear what is left but perhaps a nutritional need only satisfied by animal flesh (and then one that cannot be otherwise synthesized or produced without killing animals) that would render the failure to eat animal flesh to lead to the death of the higher evolved human. > Ron wrote: > Yes the human life vs. personal freedom subject is important but it's > context lies primarily upon how our culture views and values human life > and individual freedom. MP: Maybe I don't understand the MoQ levels, but isn't that like saying the life of the cultural pattern has moral superiority over the life of the biological patterns that make it up? Is this an MoQ position? It does not sound like it to me. That's a little like saying self-mutilation is morally acceptable because the person doing the mutilating is more evolved than the cells he's mutilating. Seems to put things on their head from an MoQ standpoint. Seems to me issues of human life and its individuality/freedom are primary to human life and as such any greater pattern that is made up of human lives. The pattern made up of human lives is morally obligated to respect those lives as that which give it its own life. The morality of the Quality results of every pattern made up of human lives is contingent on the moral life of those human lives as they interact in Quality. Those two human elements are somewhere in the pilot's seat of that Quality train slicing through things; human lives are the prime movers of reality reacting to Quality, human life and individual freedom are prime agents of allowing that experience of Quality. If MoQ is an inquiry into morals, and all patterns here which are more evolved than humans are made up of/by humans living life... issues of life and individuality are prime subjects for MoQ morality for culture, society, intellect. Allowing culture to drive how we consider, approach or define those two elements of human life only kills them when it gets static, and that's *immoral* on the part of culture. Seems to me that the MoQ moral response is to *reject* cultural static reaction when it impedes human life or individuality, no? If so, then discussing the MoQ morality of issues of human life and individuality are prime subjects of MoQ, and cultural definitions must bow to those of MoQ, not the other way around. MP ---- "Don't believe everything you think." 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/ 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/
