Hi Rick and others
On 2 Mar 99, at 20:01, Richard Budd wrote:
> But do you really think that "innocent until proven otherwise" is somehow
> more "Intellectually correct" than the reverse? Neither one insures a
> higher rate of accurate justice and since the Intellectual level must be
> sure to preserve the social level in order to its own survival you'd think
> it would be of higher Intellectual society to err on the side of a higher
> evolutionary system---society. What do you think???
Well, the application of justice is at a social level, whilst certain rights of the
individual are
at an intellectual level. If you adopt the principle "guilty until proven innocent"
then the
onus is on the individual to prove that he/she is innocent. With the reverse of this
it is up
to society to prove the individual guilty. By assuming guilt in the first place it is
easier for
a society to suppress its members actions and beliefs which, although it may not cause
undue damage at a biological level will cause damage at an intellectual level. The
assumption of innocence is a mechanism to protect societies members from the excesses
of
society, the assumption of guilt is for the benefit of the institutions of society.
On 2 Mar 99, at 7:47, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
> In answering Rick's quiry, Horse reverts to the vaguest of terms - justice.
> I have no such folly to believe "justice" is necessary in the MOQ. Justice
> is a stuffy Western idea, definately not universal and certainly not
> *absolutely* necessary. I am relutant to invoke that god, quite yet.
but then goes on to say:
> Therefore, I say, the MOQ supports the concept behind "innocent
> until proven guilty" because it forces society to prove that the societal
> harm of destructive biological patterns outwiegh the benefits of
> intellectual patterns - i.e. it asks for proof "beyond a reasonable
> doubt,"
Isn't this the essence of justice?
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
