Hi Platt,
I just received your comments on my post. Did not read it properly to give
any decent answer.
Anyhow, after I wrote that post, after I saw the other comments and after
I had a good night sleep, still in the morning the notion mentioned below
about human supremacy over other species haunts my mind.
> It follows that intellect (belonging only to humans) has moral
> supremacy over other species. Other species have no "rights"
> other than those we grant.
> Then comes Pirsig's caveat that I mentioned before and that you
> previously cited, "except for the need for social stability."
I can 't determine if you or Pirsig wrote it, but either way I think it is
wrong,
moreover it is not even " moral " to say such things, and that in itself is
not
even moral from my side of the ocean to say.
It would mean IMO anyway that I will use all of my Intellect and all of my
Intellectual moral powers to defend by all means democracy, freedom etc.
but by doing so I pretend that I am more Intellectual and therefor that I am
entitled to have ( to exceed to) a moral supremacy over others !?
And those others have those " rights ", no others than the ones I granted
them due to my Intellect/ by my Intellect !?
Sorry, old man ( gently intented) here you or Pirsig is wrong !!
We have the (a) moral obligation to preserve, and than again all kinds of
memetic, genetic, social, political, cultural etc traits, habits and
behavior
are maximizing all kinds of contradictive and negative effcts upon the
making of such obligations.
Platt, what you ( and I suppose Pirsig) does is placing Intellect ( and
there-
for for some gut reason morality) above and over other((s) species).
IMO, not very moral !!
Animals, like lions, are intelligent/ have some degree ( by our standards)
of Intellect.
But do they possess a moral background upon which they take warnings !?
No way !!
We find, as humans, the killing of animals immoral if humans do the killing
!
We find it traits, habits and behavior of nature if lions take on the weak
and
the sick, but we find it repulsive if a society overpowers a minority.
Where is the difference !?
Only if moral standards are applied to the question you can make a
difference, but that doesn 't mean that ' THAT MORALITY ' ( established
by our Intellectual abilities) give us any right ( moral or whatever) to say
or even think we have a certain surpremacy over other species.
Like you mention in your reply, it would mean that an earthworm have a
moral supremacy over the organic substance wherein he makes his tun-
nels !?
What is the definition for morality in the MOQ !?
I agree that I am maybe wrong in seeing the things at their darkest side.
Maybe you ( and Pirsig) only advocate that in theory, in an abstract way,
Intellect has moral supremacy over other species, but then again, ayway,
if whenever the MOQ is acknowleged in some future as somehow the
morality of preserving social, biological and inorganic value patterns those
notions will stand out.
More or less, in the early days of the 20 century, people like Heidegger,
Nietzsche, Jaspers, Smith, Splengler, Huizinga,...advocated in their
writings
their concerns about the ways their societies were going, ideas to how
those problems could be contradicted.
It is no secret that NS and Hitler himself lacerated these books. The result
we all know...
PS in your post, you mention that Hitler believed that the Jews were the
social problem, maybe, but he was more convinced that the Jews were
the solution to his problem. Get rid of them was the solution.
Never heard the anecdote about Hitler and Wittgenstein !?
They knew eachother before the war, Hitler's dislike for the Jews begins
somewhere in that period...That as an aside though.
Back to my post,
Danila did point it out, who will than decide for the society what is
beauty,
what is Quality !?
If you take, Platt, your Intellect moral supremacy as the standard for such
an assumption, well count me out.
It is IMO, moral to kill a diabled child at birth, if we indeed have the
Intellect, the moral ability to see tru' ALL the consequences if the child
stays alive.
I do not see this as to how my Intellect has a moral supremacy over
another " species " ( a disabled child).
Other " species " ( that disabled child ) have the RIGHT not to have
been born in the first place, and that is not a right that I would like,
ever,
to grant it...it is FUNDAMENTAL !!
Like a recent example shows us, a disabled boy summoned his parents
in order to get compension for his emotional pain and agony due to have
been born. HE WON !!
That is using our Moral Intelligence !!
In no way we use our Intellectual supremacy ( whatever that is) to grant
the boy ' rights '.
He already did has those right. They are, at least in out Western society,
FUNDAMENTAL !!
The earthworm has no moral right to dig tunnels in the organic substance
we call dirt, it is his nature. I did not grant him the ' rights ' to dig
tunnels
in my frontlawn, social stability or not, I will not kill this creature, but
to
imply I have the moral right to do so if I want to...well you knock me off
my feet...
Hope to hear from you soon....
Best of all the regards,
Kenneth
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 - 16:00:57 BST