Hi Everyone:
Just ran across a debate between bioethicist Peter Singer and
Appeals Court Judge Richard A. Posner on Slate magazine's website.
If you are at all interested in how moral arguments are conducted
without the benefit of the MOQ, this is a classic example. Singer
regards the reduction of pain across the spectrum of animal life as a
moral imperative while Posner relies on human moral instincts as
modified by historical conditions to determine right from wrong. Neither
consider the moral levels as described in the MOQ. I found the
exchange between these two high quality intellects to be fascinating,
especially in light of Pirsig's metaphysics. I think many of you will, too.
The Web site is:
http://slate.msn.com/dialogues/01-06-11/dialogues.asp?iMsg=2
Platt
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
