You should'nt bother because there is no difference. You shouldn't bother because all you'll offer is the same old excuses not to answer.
----- Original Message ---- From: X Acto <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 9:00:22 PM Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life? different post, answer the question. ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 7:49:53 AM Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life? You claim I don't use reason, then ask me to explain. Why should I bother? On 15 Sep 2010 at 17:26, X Acto wrote: > Fact is Platt, there is no difference compared to privatised health care > just who is deciding who lives and who dies. > > Practicaly speaking, why does this matter? > > you still have some beuricratic jerkhole deciding who lives and who dies. > > their just getting paid differently. > > explain this. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: X Acto <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 8:20:31 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life? > > Do we need to revisit the MoRaT interpretation? > > How Pirsig quotes can mean anything we like them to mean? > > probably not > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 4:56:43 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life? > > 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > > 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 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 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 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
