Horse and all,
Thought Experiment #2 is posted further down for anyone interested.
>> Glen wrote:
>> 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?
Glen wrote:
>> What he (RMP) 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?
Horse wrote:
> Of course not! Furthermore Pirsig doesn't say that every stroppy idiot
that doesn't conform is
> the equivalent of the Zuni brujo (a point some members would do well to
remember). This is
> an argument against the death penalty and in favour of tolerance.
Jefferson, Trotsky, Stalin,
> Collins, De Valera, Castro, Guevara etc. were all revolutionaries and,
dependent upon your
> point of view, "bad guys", but they were the instigators of social change
IN RETROSPECT
> and thus REAL dynamic forces - and an irrepressible force for social
change. The concept of
> RETROSPECTIVE evaluation is a major point to remember.
The purpose of the Thought Experiment was to see if there were any
conditions in which capital punishment would be justified. It seems like
you are saying there would be, which while we might differ on the
circumstances we seem to agree that these conditions do exist. That's
reasonable, good.
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)?
Glen wrote:
>> 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:
> I would say that the MOQ does support cryogenic preservation for seriously
criminal
> behaviour - it is just one more form of containment. But why "never to be
re-awakened"?
> When we reach the point where we can comprehensibly remove anti-social
behaviour by
> some form of reconditioning why not revive the criminal. A chilling
thought. I hope that any
> society that can do this is morally beyond reproach.
Better yet why waste the time on fixing the criminal at all? Is anybody
really going to vote for a tax to awaken homcidal maniacs only to perform a
complicated medical procedure so they can be retrained to live in a society
that that have little connection to? Probably not, in which the criminals
have for all intents and purposes been put to death. I don't know if that's
completely bad though, and at least the social pattern has the option of
reawakening them.
Horse wrote:
>>> This is a gross distortion of the MoQ.
Glen wrote:
>> Wow that's a pretty big pedestal you got yourself. My views are not
>> unreasoned, nor are they unarticulately presented.
Horse wrote:
> I completely agree - please don't take offense if I sometimes seem to be a
touch pompous - I
> am, after all, English :)
None taken.
Glen wrote:
>> So if we know somebody committed murder but they get off on a
>> technicallity we throw up our hands and declare justice is served?
Faugh!
Horse wrote:
> We may say that it is not good but recap Pirsig:
"Static quality, the moral force of the priests, emerges in the wake of
Dynamic Quality. It is
old and complex. It always contains a component of memory. Good is
conformity to an
established pattern of fixed values and value objects. Justice and law are
identical. Static
morality is full of heroes and villains, loves and hatreds, carrots and
sticks. Its values don’t
change by themselves. Unless they are altered by Dynamic Quality they say
the same thing
year after year. Sometimes they say it more loudly, sometimes more softly,
but the message
is always the same."
LILA Chapter 9
Horse wrote:
> Justice and the law are STATIC value patterns. Justice IS law. If you want
to improve justice
> then improve the law!
While I certainly agree that law does represent a static pattern of social
quality the law is not justice, no not at all. Justice is an intellectual
pattern that pertains to the balance of good vs. evil. Go check your C.O.D.
for justice. The laws may implement justice but they are do not contain it.
LAWS may be JUST but JUSTICE is not solely the province of the LAW. The
state may not convict someone under the law but that does not mean that
society (the population) should treat them as if they never did anyone
wrong. Why would I volutarily have commerce with a murderer? True the
state may have aquited the murderer but it would be unjust of me to pretend
that they did not violate the social pattern. Confusing Justice with the
Law is like confusing Social Patterns of Quality with the State. The second
item is a sub set of the first, not equal to. Some of the Social Patterns
of Quality are represented by the State but not all.
My point with the size of our hypothetical nation being ten people is that
the size of what might be considered the State is irrelevant. If in the
island case you believe it is just for the State to sentence the serial
killer to die (or at least be confined to perpetual incarceration) for their
crimes. Then it follows that even if the State does not convict them it is
still 'just' that they pay some price for their violation of Static Patterns
of Social Quality. Destroying other individuals on a whim can not be
accepted even if it is legal or the State chooses not to act. This is in
fact a more fundamental Social Pattern of Quality than the Law!
Let me propose a twist to the Thought Experiment:
Thought Experiment #2:
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 both have witnessed the serial killer,
(let's call him Charlie for obvious reasons) Charlie murder at least one
other
person and are in complete agreement from physical evidence that he is
guilty.
He does not however confess. You can confine Charlie but unfortunately your
island nation is a difficult place to live and each person on the island
must
spend eight hours a day gathering food in order to survive. While you and
your friend could let Charlie gather his own food it would be very likely
that
he could escape in the dense foliage or over come one or both of you. The
alternative is for you to gather food for him. This would consume a further
eight hours a day for one of you or four hours a day for both of you.
Two questions:
1) Your friend is willing to do what ever you decide is right. What do you
do?
2) Your friend refuses to let Charlie gather food his own food and refuses
to gather food for him. What do you do?
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.
Glen wrote:
>> Perhaps your just not meeting the right people.
Horse wrote:
> I know - I must get out more :)
> But seriously, each and every human being is created partly by Biological
patterns of value -
> uppermost of which are the values of reproduction and pleasure - hence the
enormous
> number of people that quite justifiably enjoy getting wasted and getting
laid, me included.
> Most of these values are common to all members of the animal kingdom. It's
only when these
> values threaten an established Social pattern that they need to be
regulated (in relation to the
> established Social pattern) because it is at this point that there is a
moral conflict that
> needs to be determined and resolved.
I've met and seen some interviews with creatures that wear a human form but
do not poccess IMO an intellectual awarness or a social awarness such as I
recognize it. Do you think it is possible for a creature to be biologically
human but not possess these other characteristics? You say no? I think
this is possible.
Smiles,
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
