> > Hi Arlo, > Thanks for the response. I agree, trying to compare times in history is difficult and beset with opinions. I believe the issue lies more in man's apparent need to follow someone who professes the answer. This only leads to corrupted power. If individual freedom is considered as a valuable construct, such following of leaders is not valuable, and perhaps results in immoral acts more often than not.
[Mark] > Quality itself may be considered amoral, its expression in human behavior > (and > perhaps other things) is where morality ties in as a pointer. > > [Arlo] > I would not word it this way. Quality is a moral force, but that > "expression" > is different as one climbs the MOQ's levels. A virus is behaving morally > (from > its vantage), and a doctor fighting it is acting morally from his vantage, > a > higher level. When a virus does kill a human it is "immoral" only from the > vantage of the social and intellectual levels, from the biological level > the > virus is acting perfectly morally. This may appear to be "ammorality" from > a > birds eye view, but I think it better seen as "competing, or evolving, > moral > responses". > > > [Mark] I believe problems arise when one uses a human based morality to provide a conceptual framework for such a thing. If evolution is moral, it is also destructive, and somewhat impersonal. Morality then assumes a scientific description which is intended to convey impersonal objective observations. However, as morality, it begs further clarification. Cheers, Mark > 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
