[Platt] I was hoping there could be a discussion based on what two distinguished scientists agreed was "the most difficult ethical question facing science today." I thought the question was particularly relevant to this group because Pirsig said that SOM science has "no provision for morals."
[Arlo] First note the change from "science" to "SOM science". [Platt] But, here are two scientists who apparently believe it's a question science has some authority in answering, contradicting the thrust of the MOQ. [Arlo] And back to "science". I don't think this contradicts anythings, but maybe it demonstrates science's overall expansion away from the S/O blindness Pirsig noted years ago. [Platt] So far only Ian has offered to debate "how much 'rights' (to health care) an MOQ argument would support." [Arlo] Correct. I think Ian's pointing out the mixed approach of all Western nations is accurate. The wealthy can, as always, ensure their own health-care security (as Ian said, who would deny them?), while the poor are afforded a safety net to ensure that "who lives and who dies" is not based exclusively on a person's "economic value". Your assumption, unless I am mistaken, is that the mode of distribution will always necessitate some living and some dying (for want or treatment). Do you think capitalism provides a "better" system for determining who lives and who dies than the mixed "socialism" systems? On what "value" then, is this determined? 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/md/archives.html
