On Aug 8, 2011, at 6:01 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Marsha axed: > Is there a difference between the law holding someone responsible& > protecting citizens from further harm and a individual being "morally > responsible"? Just a question... > > > dmb says: > Yes, there is a big difference. I think that was Sam's point. We build > tornado shelters because tornados do damage, not because we hold them morally > responsible for their actions. Same with brain-diseased psychopaths. We lock > them up because they do damage, not because we hold them morally responsible. > We can identify them as the cause of the damage, so they were responsible as > an efficient cause, like a bullet, but they cannot be held responsible as > moral agents, Sam says.
Marsha: My point, though I might have made it badly, was that there seems nothing preventing the law from punishing & incarcerating an individual to protect society without his 'free will' or his 'moral responsibility' entering into the equations. Society can punish and incarcerate to protect its citizen. Within the MoQ there is no autonomous agent with free-will to hold morally responsible. The MoQ offers a four-tiered, evolutionary, hierarchical structure as a moral framework which improves the basis on which laws (patterns) can be evaluated without a moral agent. Free-will is a static pattern of value, a conventional belief, not something ultimately real. So I neither accept 'free-will' nor reject 'free-will'; it is irrelevant from a MoQ point-of-view. The better question to be asking is how does one detach from the static patterns of value which inhibit the freedom associated with Dynamic Quality . And as RMP has stated in LILA (Chapter 32) by following DQ morality will be served. ___ 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
