Hello ,
I enjoyed Rory FitzGerald's THE NATURE OF NATURAL LAW and very much liked its
placement on the MOQ website. But I have to question the section entitled, "Equality
and Affirmative Action", which attempts to apply MOQ principles to that social
question. He writes:
"Affirmative action is essentially an artificial tailoring of the existing patterns of
society, by intellectual means, for the purposes of the ideal of equality. Thus it is
a case of intellect dominating societal patterns, and so is moral up to the point of
it's success. However US racial affirmative action appears to be incorrect it its
assumption that 'equality' is synonymous with 'sameness' in that it ignores the little
publicised scientific, historical and social fact that some racial groups are on
average genetically different in abilities to others, and therefore are on average
more suitable for certain types of employment. (Kingsley An Introduction to Psychology
1979 :132)"
First of all let me say that I'm not in a position to argue about "the little
publicized scientific, historical and social fact that some racial groups are on
average genetically different in abilities to others, and therefore are on average
more suitable for certain types of employment." Truth is, I'm weak in my
understanding of the subject of genetics. This may be due to my own genetic makeup or
to the fact that I was more motivated to spend my school years trying to be a 6'5"
white basketball star (never quite got there) then I was to study science. Instead, I
want to argue *for* the notion of "sameness".
Let's say that a group of wealthy individuals get together and decide to furnish
college tuition to some kids who can't afford to pay. The group decides it wishes to
hand out those scholarships based on the principles of the MOQ. But a dispute arises.
Part of the group says that because intellect is considered to be the highest level
of evolution, then the money should go to the most intellectually promising students
in order of their IQ's, college entrance tests and a good genetic/ biological
examination. The idea is to choose those students who show the most propensities for
the greatest intellectual achievement.
Now the other part of the group disagrees. They "feel" that this isn't quite right.
After interviewing all of the candidates, they sense that to choose only those who
scored high enough intellectually would constitute an unnatural bias and actually go
against their aim of intelligently promoting "man's evolution" by creating
scholarships.
The first group argues convincingly; "But the 'lessor' kids are more predisposed to
falling back into biological patterns then the high-scoring intellectual kids. If we
choose only the smartest ones, we'll stand the best chance of promoting evolution."
The second group can't buy this. "How do you know? We might only be promoting some
biological disposition for bigger brains that can spin larger and faster calculations
but leaves Mankind weaker evolutionarily. It's true that by supporting some of the
more biologically inclined students, that we are likely to produce *less*
mathematicians, doctors and lawyers and *more* K-Mart managers; but whose to says what
will move Mankind in a better way ultimately? We can't say for sure. Perhaps the
increase in social achievement among the more biologically and socially inclined
students will pay higher evolutionary dividends then the fruit of the intellectual
kids? The K-Mart manager may strengthen patterns of value by his presence in the
community while the high IQ kid might end up wasting precious funding on low value or
even destructive dead-end "thought" projects."
It seems to me that the MOQ is best represented by the second group who wishes to give
out scholarships based on a certain amount of "sameness". Give some to students from
one group and some to students from another group. Sort of like a dice player who
knows he can't predict what number will turn up, and so chooses the highest percentage
course for a return by betting a wider spread.
Also, is Bill Gates a higher form of evolution then was Mother Teresa? It seems to me
that they might be at an equal level but on different branches on the tree of life.
Comments?
Bill
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
