[Mark] > In my opinion the highest quality of such morality is non-interference. > That is allowing the liberty of expression of whatever kind. But then of > course we get into the deviants who want to cause harm. Should they have > liberty to do so? I would say yes. But at the same time we have the > liberty to kill those SOBs.
. IMHO this is a very inadequate morality. Is it really enough to say of a mass murderer, "Yeah, we'll kill him if we catch him"? (Some would even say this is too great a punishment.) The point of morality is to distinguish what behavior we can tolerate, what behavior must be prevented & what behavior should be punished. . [Mark] > Left to their own devices, the animal kingdom is somewhat moral. At least > it would seem so from a human perspective. So what is it about man that > requires strict morality scriptures? In my opinion it is the disease of > leaders and followers. . The MoQ has a better perspective on this: animals act morally on the biological level, but only humans also interact on higher levels. There is nothing especially immoral about "leaders and followers". . [Mark] > I believe that left to his own devices man is good, no different from the > zebra or coyote. But what would be the result of complete liberty > created through no leaders or followers? Would it be anarchy? > I do not think so, if it is allowed to play itself out. . IMHO there's no evidence (nor could there be) for this view. . Craig 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
