Hi Danila:
You asked, “Where human needs threaten to annihilate a
species, should human needs prevail? If so, why?”
I suggest you’ll find the MOQ answer in Lila, Chap. 13:
“In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at
a higher level of evolution, is more moral. An example of this is the
statement that, "It's more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than to
allow the germ to kill his patient." The germ wants to live. The
patient wants to live. But the patient has moral precedence
because he's at a higher level of evolution.
“Taken by itself that seems obvious enough. But what's not so
obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is
absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient.
This is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to
some doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all
cultures. It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a
moral pattern of reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with
morals on the basis of reason.”
Humans have all but destroyed the species of germ that causes
smallpox. Last I heard there were several small vials of the deadly
virus frozen solid in well-guarded laboratories in Atlanta and
Moscow while virologists and others argue about whether to kill
them outright, thereby destroying the species permanently. The
argument for keeping them alive in suspended animation is
maybe we will find a beneficial use for them someday.
The MOQ has no qualms, morally, for destroying other species on
the grounds that they are on a lower level of evolution than
humans. The only MOQ caveat is the one you expressed—“except
for the need for social stability.”
Our evolutionary path to DQ is “better” than other species because
we are already at a higher level of evolution, i.e., more Dynamic
which, in MOQ terms, means higher value = more moral = better.
What bothers me about this MOQ view is it leaves no allowance
for the virtue of beauty. Not that I care about the beauty of a
smallpox virus. But there are many species of, for instance,
flowers, which we humans could well destroy under the MOQ
theory of right/wrong. But what about the loss to us of their beauty?
Would that not be immoral? Sometimes I think the MOQ misses
an understanding of :
To see a world in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wildflower
To hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour
-- William Blake
I’m still absorbing your latest “Art & Intellect” post and hope to
have a cogent response in a few days.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:55 BST