Hi,
sorry to join this late - it's been going for a while, and for the proabable brevity
[and consequent unsatisfactority] of response. It's been interesting as I'm still
here tonight after going through most of the 47 odd
postings that I had left around.
<Glenn>
> Analogous
> support of MOQ's moral hierarchy framework would have it solving, with
> consensus agreement, 20 billion moral dilemmas without a solution to a single moral
>issue being left to doubt.
>
> Of course this is impractical but we don't need to go through the trouble
> because there's a counterexample (Platt's grandchildren vs posting to
> this forum) to the moral framework. If you disagree this is a
> counter-example, as Platt has, I've at least thrown into question the
> efficacy of the framework for harder moral issues.
>
> The moral framework is useful for understanding why a moral issue is
> difficult or simple, but it doesn't offer any practical value for
> solutions, since trivial ones can be solved without it and harder ones
> are not guided by it.
> Glenn
</Glenn>
Ok - I'm not sure that the moral problems facing us can be solved to the billionth
decimal place and even if such a method of conversion social phenomena <=:> maths
existed I would warrant we would come across some huge
Heisenberg-type priciple involved with measurement - like opinion polls actually
changing the minds of the people asked.
As for
<quote>
but it doesn't offer any practical value forsolutions, since trivial ones can be
solved without it and harder ones are not guided by it.
</quote>
Um. Gee whizz, I guess we have to figure it out without Moses coming down from Mt
Sinai then.
Apologies for sarcasm. But I think that there is a slight difference between a method
of thought and a catechism. And as a great deal of the current moral problems relate
to fluctuating situations with a great deal of back
down factor necessitated on both sides [IMO] ... it's quite difficult to write a
procedure without resort to vague moral generalities .. and a hell of a lot of playing
it by ear : oops back to vague quality moments.
As for Platt looking after the biological, social [and by inference the future
intellectual] welfare of his grandchildren, I can't quite see the dilemma purported to
by Glenn.
But this is a somewhat strawman, as stated : there are much more complex issues.
Final word[s] [on this occasion] - SOM is effectively closed, DQ is open ended and
'tries' to integrate 'the new' with 'the acknowledged' - sometimes to the 'detriment'
of the new, sometimes to the 'detriment' of the
acknowledged. SOM only accepts one reality - the one which it currently describes
[nope not going to be drawn into distinction between 'scientists' and 'science' here]
hence each 'quantum leap' is often going to be a
revolution [or an expiry of the old-guard]. BUT, yup - it's a moot point : would we
have progressed so far with science if 'we' [= corresponding culture] hadn't have
religiously believed in it?
Best Regards,
Hamish
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
