Hi Jack:
Your argument that society has intellectual quality commits the
fallacy of composition, reasoning illogically from the properties of
the parts of a whole to the properties of the whole itself. To say
individuals have intellectual quality, therefore society has
intellectual quality is like saying since every player on a team is an
outstanding athlete, the team must be an outstanding team.
Also, you introduce two types of intellect, one for individuals,
another for society. You say society has intellect because it can
debate, have public discussions, enact laws, etc. But, the
biological/social ability to talk does not an intellect make.
Finally, �collective consciousness� has nothing to do with intellect.
It�s merely a poll result. To say otherwise is to commit the
argumentum ad populum fallacy. The fact that �everyone knows�
something to be true doesn�t make it true.
You accuse me of not keeping the MOQ divisions in mind. Maybe
so, but when you say - �Were now using another set of social
codes that have more quality. That is, logic, reason and science.� -
you�re mixing apples and oranges. Logic, reason and science
aren�t social codes. They�re what the intellectual level is all about.
And to say the Victorians didn�t use logic, reason and science is
just plain wrong. In fact, they emphasized the intellectual values of
logic, reason and science. Otherwise, they could never have
created the Industrial Revolution.
Your theory of �investing energy into the dynamic development of
yourself or others� is fine as an overall generalization. Mother
Theresa can�t be faulted for �raising people beyond their biological
suffering,� but by that standard every health care worker is a saint.
Maybe those like Tom Cruise who donate money to Mother
Theresa and other charities should be credited for investing in
dynamic development at the biological level also. And, let�s not
forget the role of the police and military in keeping biological forces
such as murder and theft at bay.
Generalizations serve a valuable purpose, but it�s specific social
policies that creates arguments. Is society better off by forcing
welfare recipients to work? Is society better off by providing health
care, regardless of cost, for all citizens. Is society better off
spending billions in an effort to ward off global warming when
scientists disagree on global warming effects?
These and many other issues aren�t answered easily, least of all
by �crusaders for social change.� Whether the MOQ can serve as a
workable moral compass as we struggle with such questions is
still open for debate.
Platt
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]
