Michael --
On the issue of abortion, which you introduced, you say:
I don't expect there to be a clear cut MoQ moral answer..
Arlo (more or less) insists there is:
Here's my answer. Keeping in mind that the reasons
many women choose abortion are complicated and varied
... And keep in mind that these examples are purposefully
simplistic.
Having an abortion to escape social stigma, for example,
would be an example of something the MOQ would say
is immoral.
However, having an abortion to save the life of the mother
I would think the MOQ would say is moral.
But isn't this just speculation on what Pirsig would say? It's like the
Pope pontificating on what God would say. I would call that "moralizing by
authority". Frankly, despite the "Inquiry into Morals" subtitle, I don't
believe the MoQ offers any advice that relates to the abortion question.
Ron was non-committal in a lengthier post, only one statement of which
struck me as relevant to your question:
I think most people value human life and this plays a big role
in the decision and the consequences of making such a choice.
From a strictly valuistic perspective, human life is our most precious
commodity. With few exceptions, civilization has evolved on the precept
that human beings have innate value and should be respected accordingly.
How we treat our fellow creatures is the basis of morality because it is the
core principle of our culture.
The decison to abort the life of a fetus represents a denial of that value,
whether the decision is based on belief that the fetus is not viable, that
it will develop incapacitating abnormalities, that it is the product of rape
or incest, that its delivery will jeopardize the life of the mother, or
simply that it is not wanted because it poses an "inconvenient burden" or a
source of maternal or family social stigma.
The human embryo is a potential person, but not a self-aware individual
until gestation has completed its natural course. So, legally speaking, it
is "maternal property", and the mother has the moral right to decide its
fate. Human values are not served by bringing infants into the world with
life-threatening physical deformities, severe brain damage, blindness, and
degenerative diseases. Fortunately, medical science has given us the means
to detect such abnormalities in utero, so that the tragedy of a cruel and
wasted life is preventable. Ideally, the decision to abort will be
carefully weighed by the prospective parents in consultation with medical
specialists. When this is not possible, the mother's values and reasoning
powers will prevail.
Genetic technology and recent stem cell research complicates the life of the
modern moralist or esthetician. Do we destroy human life when we discard
fertilized egg cells? Do we risk damage to the future of our species by
implanting them for cloning purposes? Is it better not to toy with nature
than to experiment with human tissue in the hope of growing replacement body
parts or curing spinal injuries? Society will inevitably have to deal with
many more such moral issues as the biological sciences advance. Here,
again, we will be guided either by rational, self-directed value or by
authority of the pragmatists (most likely bureaucrats of the state).
Essentially speaking,
Ham
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/
