Quoting Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [Arlo previously] > Pirsig is saying the activity of fighting social repression of > intellect is "more moral" than the activity of fighting social > repression of biology. > > [Platt] > I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he's saying a > Galileo is more moral than a common criminal. > > [Arlo] > Your intent to use criminality obscures this issue, Platt. Why say "a > Galileo"? Let me ask you this (dropping this history and the > criminality for now). Name someone who is "more moral" than you are. > Do you think that makes their intrinsic value as a human being > "better" than yours?
A soldier defending this country from terrorists. Yes. > Do you feel, based on your wealth, that you are of higher value than > an unemployed miner in West Virginia. You may argue you have a higher > current social value, but does this alone determine your worth as a person? No. > Is Galileo more moral than Sam Walton? No. > Is James Gleick a better > person than Sam Walton? No. > [Platt] > The moral standing of individuals is further explained as Pirsig writes... > > [Arlo] > There is nothing in that passage about the moral standing of > individuals. It is a statement of morality in society preserving > itself from destructive biological patterns. How you use this to prop > up some "MOQ-Aristocracy" is beyond me. Read what Pirsig says about brigands and Indians who dash babies' brains out. > [Platt] > I don't think the biological activity of eating is what Pirsig had in > mind in the quote above. > > [Arlo] > No he didn't. And that's the point. Moral social suppression of > biological activity rests on proving that that activity threatens the > existence of society. Its not a carte blanche call for a return to > Victorian prudery. It's a call to recognize the role of society in keeping biological forces (if it feels good, do it) at bay. > [Platt] > He would preserve the life of the criminal if the criminal does not > present a threat to society. Keep that in mind. > > [Arlo] > Of course you know, anyone can claim anyone is a threat to society. > Proving this threat beyond any reasonable doubt is what is key, > simply claiming so does not give us provocation to execute > willy-nilly. In other words, you have to prove to everyone why even > the continued existence of an incarcerated person threatens the very > fabric of society. And then, if so, and provided the threat is > biological and NOT intellectual, then you can morally execute. Right. Terrorists are threats to society. Witness Iraq. > A poor, unemployed miner is not a threat to society, certainly not a > "biological threat". And as such providing for his health and medical > needs is a moral function of society. Nowhere in the MOQ do I see the justification for forcing Peter to pay for Paul's illness. If you think it does, please provide the supporting quotes. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
