ROGER RESPONDS TO DMB'S ANSWERS
AND FINDS WE ARE BATTING AT LEAST 500
1) How does the MOQ judge the morality of the Union in the American
Civil War?
[David Buchanan] All a person needs in order to answer this one
are basic reading comprehension skills. Pirsig gives the answer
explicitly. "John Brown's truth was never an abstraction. It still keeps
marching on." (chapter 13)
ROGER:
I wanted to start easy. But why is it moral to kill a million living sources
of intellect to preserve one particular form of a nation? Aren't two growing
nations as moral as one big nation? If not, then how do we justify the
American Revolution? Or the break-up of the Soviet Union? And was this war
really fought over freedom and equality, or was this cause just later
adopted? ( You are the historian, so feel free to help me out here, David)
The case against capital punishment is somehow forgotten when thousands or
millions die for their country. I guess I accept the MOQ would find it moral
to fight and die for freedom or equality, but most wars are fought over
power, not freedom. I suspect this goes for the Civil War too. The MOQ does
not seem to work very well in this case.
2) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Congress in the Impeachment
Process of President Clinton?
[David Buchanan] The President had legal principles on his
side, not unlike a civil rights attorney. The impeachment supporters
were defending society against biology not, unlike a vice-cop.
Ironically, the conservatives were acting less morally than the
President, at least as far as the impeachment process is concerned.
Bill's affair with Monika was most certainly immoral, but those who
would un-do an election for such an affair were far more immoral, and
we're immoral on a much larger scale.
ROGER:
This one is tougher. In fact I disagree with most of what you have written.
The President is the ultimate social figure of the government. The conduct of
this person can and should be an integral part of establishing and
maintaining the social fabric of the culture. It seems quite moral to me that
our government would have built in control mechanisms to evaluate if he
deserved to continue in that capacity. He was proven to be capable to
continue in that role. Congress was extremely moral and Bill Clinton lied to
the entire nation to protect himself from an irresponsible act of a powerful
figure using his status to sodomize a very young lady. Bill held up
biological value over social and social over intellectual (his position over
the truth).
Again, I agree with the ability of the MOQ to help us frame the problem, but
I find your particular answer to be morally repugnant.......hmmmmmm.
3) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Truman's decision to drop
nuclear bombs on Japan?
[David Buchanan] The decision was immoral for several reasons,
but mostly because it favored social values (The cost of the war) over
legal principles that the USA had already adopted and signed. It was a
violation of John Brown's truth even though we had codified it in
international laws. Intentionally killing large numbers of civilians is
no way to demonstrate our respect for human rights.
ROGER:
The cost of the war is primarily in lives. I fail to see how the MOQ gives
much moral guidance within levels. Japan attacked, the US fought back. It
is just pure pattern protection. If I have to reach a moral decision on this
one, it is that if was Truman I would try to end the war with the strongest
measure of strength, yet the fewest number of casualties. There were limited
numbers of bombs, so he probably acted pretty morally.
I happen to know Ken agrees with me here.
Hypothetical situations:
4) Your wife is eight months pregnant, but is starting to become
unstable due to some horrible events. She wants a partial birth
abortion. What is the moral course you should take?
[David Buchanan] At eight months that life is viable, and if
the mother is "emotionally unstable" and is suddenly contradicting her
former wishes, then she is obviously not even able to make such a
decision. The mother simply is not competent to make such a choice.
The husband must not allow the abortion in such a case. No
metaphysic is required, there is no reason to kill the child. Unstable
emotional reasons, due to some horrible event, are not reasons at all.
We can't let that rule over the situation.
ROGER:
So is it moral to force her to have it? How much forcing is moral?
5) Who is moral, the lion, or the lamb?
[David Buchanan] They are equally moral, but the lamb is much
more tastey, especially with a little mint jelly. Lions and lambs aren't
morally responsable for the principles of vegetarianism simply because
they can't understand such a thing.
ROGER:
I like your answer here. The lion and the lamb each pursue the most moral
course they can comprehend. As comprehension, awareness and consciousness
grow, more and higher quality alternatives are available. Same level
conflicts seem often to become morally relative in the MOQ. Kill or be
killed. Conquor or be conquored. However, access to higher level quality can
create a more moral course. Lets work together. Lets make a mutually
beneficial treaty. This gets back to why I believe Japan's actions were so
immoral in WWII.
Real question:
6) Going into the new millenium, what does the MOQ say we should
embrace as an economic model? Is it unbridled free enterprise, or
intellectually
planned, socially-conscious socialism, or somewhere in-between? What
is most moral?
[David Buchanan] I'd say it would be a lot like Robert's Rules.
There should be a principled static situation where a dynamic market can
flourish. Unbridled free enterprize is un-principled and amoral a is a
return to the jungle. That's why so many free-markers are also social
darwinists. MOQ economics insists on the rule of intellectual principles
like democracy and human rights and would constrain business to the
extent required to preserve those principles, but it would not be a
"planned ecomony" because that is too static and thereby thwarts
evolution.
ROGER:
I like your answer here for the most part as well. Does everyone else agree?
Where I may disagree is when we get to the details. The biggest fundamental
concern is with your social darwinism comment. Organizations in an economy
do have to compete and outperform others to continue to survive. This is the
dynamic that drives the whole thing. They can work synergistically too (as
does biology by the way). Inefficient businesses should be allowed to fail
though, and inneffective workers should be penalized as well...for example
with relative poverty. However, there needs to be rules and protections
against power that is not adding value to the economy.
David, let me know yout thoughts on my thoughts, and then we can regroup and
see how well the moral compass is working. I was pleasantly surprised it
worked as well (as consistently) as it did. Maybe you and I just agree more
than most?
I would appreciate more answers if anyone else has time.......
Roger
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]
