Hi
On 2010-09-16 14:13, [email protected] wrote:
On 16 Sep 2010 at 11:20, Magnus Berg wrote:
Hi Platt
That was interesting. Wasn't you one the SOL people? Then we can remove
you from that list. You seem to have a much broader view of the
intellectual level than only S/O logic.
[P]
How so? Whether you think the intellectual level is SOL or something else, it
still is morally superior to the social level.
I was commenting your view, not mine. And it was a bit off the topic at
hand, still interesting.
And you didn't answer my question: How does that work?
The question was asking how society can treat humans as both morally
superior and morally inferior at the same time. I say it can't, and that
is why the original question those distinguished scientists ask is hard.
Society has to weigh the higher and lower morality against each other
and make a duhsicion. It can't use the clear rules of the MoQ, it
becomes a compromise.
[P]
If Pirsig can't explain to you how that works by his own words, then I
certainly can't. Pirsig has made it clear that the MOQ doesn't provide "clear
rules" in deciding all moral questions but rather " . . .a large football field
that gave meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but
did not decide which team would win."
I'm not wondering how it works. I don't think Pirsig is right on target
with this one, more of a mumble.
I guess the MOQ is like your "stacks." Not everybody buys it or them.
You once said, (or quoted someone else) "Philosophy is about examining
underlying assumptions". Stacks are such underlying assumptions. You
switch between them, Pirsig does too, you just don't know it.
Magnus
On 2010-09-15 22:56, [email protected] wrote:
How does that work? Easy. Intellect is the individual, society is the group
(the Giant). The individual is morally superior to society, society morally
superior to biology. This is basic MOQ. Perhaps the following quote from Pirsig
will make clear the moral difference between the levels:
"When a society is not itself threatened, as in the execution of individual
criminals, the issue becomes more complex. In the case of treason or
insurrection or war a criminal´s threat to a society can be very real. But if
an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal,
then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification
for killing him.
What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a biological
organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society. Whenever you kill a
human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a
collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society.
Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than
social patterns of value. Just as it is more moral for a doctor to kill a germ
than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill a society than it is
for a society to kill an idea. (Lila, 13)
Key idea: Whenever you kill a human being (an individual), you are killing a
source of thought too.
Which makes the decision of who lives and who dies when a expensive life-saving
drug or technique is available is, as two distinguished scientists agreed, "the
most difficult ethical dilemma facing science today."
Magnus Berg wrote:
"Platt Holden"<[email protected]> wrote:
Magnus,
Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that you disagree with the
following from Pirsig:?
"It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of
intellect vs.society, the moral right
of intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly, of travel, trial by jury, habeas
corpus, government by consent -- these "human rights" are all intellect
vs.society issues. According to the
Metaphysics of Quality, these "human rights" have not just a sentimental
basis, but a rational, metaphysical
basis. They are essential to the evolution of life from a lower level of
life. They are for real." (Lila, 24)
I'm saying that the world isn't that black and white as that quote makes
it seem. Just this morning (Swedish time), you pulled another quote (one
of the LC comments) where Pirsig asserted society's right to control its
biological inhabitants. Don't you realize that the two quotes, the LC
quote and the one you provided here are directly contradictory? One
quote asserts the individual human's morality over society, and the
other society's morality over the individual human!
How does that work?
The answer is stacks. The original question is hard because it's not
black and white. Depending on which stack you focus on, you get a
different answer.
Magnus
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
