Hi Jon, Bruce, Jack, David L, Xcto and Everyone:
JON:
> Platt, I wish I could say that I totally understand the MOQ, but I don't. I'm
> not sure if anyone here totally understands it, otherwise we wouldn't see so
> much disagreement from many very intelligent people.
PLATT:
Good point. The more responses I see to the question of whether
the MOQ can be used as a moral guide, the more convinced I
become that in terms of helping us make ratonal moral decisions
on a wide range of issues, it flunks. Ayn Rand did a much better
job in that regard, even if her initial premises ignored certain key
characteristics of human nature. I think Bruce is right in saying that
the MOQ works a lot better when there are conflicts between levels
than when there are conflicts between different groups of people.
JON:
> I'm not sure where my
> idea comes from that helping others is high quality, but I doubt it comes
> from religion or teachers.
PLATT:
The other option I suggested was "your feelings, " or as Jack
wrote, "Watching someone suffer just plain feels bad." I'm sure
you see the problems with using this as the basis for morality.
Whose feelings are we to follow? Why are not mine as valid as
yours? Who's to say?
JON:
> So far no one here has presented a persuading argument as to why it is ok to
> sit back and enjoy life while so many others are suffering and dying.
PLATT:
II think David Lind's post of 12 Dec. on the value of suffering is
persuasive. Also, Xcto's comment about Ayn Rand applies. Read
the speech by John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged" to see cogent
arguments for the virtue of selfishness.
JON:
> This whole thing started with my outrage at volunteers asking for >donations
> to a high school baseball team. Not a single person, it seems, shares my
> outrage. A couple of people responded by saying essentially that baseball
> makes kids happy.
PLATT
One person's "outrage" cannot be a basis for a universal morality
for the reason noted above. One man's outrage is another man's
good deed.
JON:
> Now I want to suggest that perhaps pursuit of happiness in this day and age
> is immoral.
PLATT:
Then your pursuit of alleviating suffering must be immoral, for
wouldn't that pursuit, if successful, make you happy?
Whether or not you can rationally support your views may be
besides the point in your eyes. But throughout history those
dedicated to "doing good" have on occasion down great harm.
"Enabling" an alcoholic, as David Lind described, is a case in
point. And on a global scale, think of the horrors perpetrated in the
name of "helping others." To relieve eternal suffering in hell was,
after all, the goal of the Spanish Inquistion. If truth be known, we
really don't know how to help others without being arrogant (I know
what's best for you) (I can foresee consequences) and without
risking the creation of dependency.
I know these arguments won't change your mind nor should they.
What frightens me, though, is the tendency of those who are
passionate with moral certainity to want to impose, by force of law
if necessary, their views on others. I'm not accusing you of having
such a desire, but would you agree that we should be wary of the
rigidly righteous, even if we agree with them?
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]
