Horse and all,
I know this passage well and you raise some very good points here. And YES
this passage does give me considerable hesitation in putting forward my
previous arguments, yet let us try a thought experiment and reason together.
Thought Experiment:
Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that
is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer
kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the
only people left on the island. You and your friend could undertake the
long voyage off the island or you could kill the serial killer. What do you
do?
Pirsig states:
"In the case of treason or insurrection or war a criminal’s threat to a
society can be very real. But if an established social structure is not
seriously threatened by a criminal, then an evolutionary morality would
argue that there is no moral justification for killing him."
Is the serial killer on our island guilty of treason or insurection? How do
we differentiate a serious from a non-serious threat to our society? I
think in the thought experiment above there is every reason to think that
the MoQ would support destroying the serial killer. Additionally would care
to define a society? Western civilyzation? A country? a state? a county? a
town? your neighborhood? your circle of friends?
Admittedly this is an extreme example which is exactly why I choose it
because it underlines the problem so well.
Pirsig states:
"The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens
a society’s Dynamic capability—its capability for change and evolution. It’s
not the “nice” guys who bring about real social change. “Nice” guys look
nice because they’re conforming. It’s the “bad” guys, who only look nice a
hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution.
That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If those priests had
killed him they would have done great harm to their society’s ability to
grow and change."
What he doesn't say is "the reason capital punishment should never be
allowed is". While I do not think that MoQ would support death for most
crimes is does not rule out the death penalty for all crimes. Would you
sincerely argue that the serial killer on our hypothetical island represents
a potential dynamic force for the evolution of our social pattern?
I see the real problem with the capital punishment as implementation. When
the penal system declares a rapist cured after five years of incerceration
and release him and he commits the same crime again society is being
measurably hurt. On the other hand excuting people for stealing bread is
completely unsupported by the MoQ.
Glen wrote:
>> While i'm not keen on social pattern (the state) destroying intellectual
patterns
>> (citizens), there are some animals (biological patterns) out there that
happen to share
>> a species with you and me.
Horse wrote:
> Several billion I believe - in other words each and every human being
without exception.
Perhaps your just not meeting the right people.
Horse wrote:
> Alternatively, as with the Merchant of Venice, can you offer me a means of
physically
> destroying a Biological pattern without harming Intellectual patterns (a
pound of flesh
> without spilling a drop of blood)?
No I cannot and do not expect to be able to do so in the near term. What
about cyrogenic preservation though? Do you think that the MoQ supports
placing our serial killer in a state of suspended animation never to be
reawakened?
Horse wrote:
> This is a gross distortion of the MoQ.
Wow that's a pretty big pedestal you got yourself. My views are not
unreasoned, nor are they unarticulately presented.
Horse wrote:
> It is only 'not immoral' when there is a moral conflict between Biology
and Society
> (conflicting moral patterns) and the destruction is in respect of the
patterns, not just
> the form that is created by them. A Social pattern of value can destroy a
Biological
> pattern of value just as easily by reforming and/or containing the
Biological pattern of
> values.
You present an argument where capital punishment would be impossible given
our current level of technology! If this is the case why did RMP just not
come right out and say that? Perhaps he didn't say that because he think it
was true!
Horse wrote:
> If there is immediate danger to those present then this counts as self
defense - but for
> all your talk of freedom of the individual, which presumably includes the
idea that a
> person is innocent until PROVEN guilty (i.e. in a court) you still seem
willing to
> support the administering of instant 'justice'. The MoQ most certainly
does NOT support
> kangaroo courts any more than it supports lynch mobs.
Yeah a lot of people think there is only one form of justice the legalistic
form. Poetic justice is given pretty short shrift in the west but it is
every bit as valuable to the overall concept of justice as the laws are.
You equate social patterns of quality with the state and this is not the
case! So if we know somebody committed murder by they get off on a
technicallity we throw up our hands and declare justice is served? Faugh!
I'm not saying that these legal institutions are without merit but they are
only the formal tip of the social pattern iceberg! There is a huge amount
of informal social patterns that predate the laws which strive to implement
them. Surely you think this is true. The logos arose from the mythos.
Sincerely,
Glen
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
