Hi Craig, You make some good points. A question would be: when does the application of morality become immoral. The "we" that tolerate is of course dictated by social contracts as presented by Pirsig in his bit about outsiders in society. My point was that it is the phenomenon of leaders and followers that create the notion of immorality (or morality). This comes from discussions and thinking about where we went wrong with things like religion and politics, if indeed there is something wrong. Leaders are to blame for wars and fomenting hate, not the general populace. But there would not be leaders without followers.
So the endeavor of the post was to take a knife to one aspect of human behavior and present a possible outcome. Yes, not provable, probably not even very significant, just a post. Thanks, Mark On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > [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 > 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
