Hi Glen and All
Sorry for the delay in responding - t'ings ta do, ya know.
On 30 Jun 2001, at 10:36, N. Glen Dickey wrote:
> 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.
>
> Admittedly this is an extreme example which is exactly why I choose it
> because it underlines the problem so well.
An interesting example Glen but not a difficult one and for the sake of argument I'll assume
that the sovereign state has been established on principles supplied by the MoQ.
As has already been asked, how do we know for sure that the killer is not your friend? In
order to ascertain this some for of formal trial is necessary and for that there must be a set of
formal procedures etc. - you've already stated it's a sovereign nation which is a formal and
legal term if it is recognised by other nation bodies.
Assuming we have established formally that the accused is the murderer - a common
murderer in this case (is there any particular reason he should have been a serial killer?) we
can then decide if he is guilty of either treason or insurrection so a couple of definitions are
needed. I took these from the ninth edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
TREASON:
Violation by a subject of allegiance to the sovereign or to the State, esp. by attempting to kill
or overthrow the sovereign or to overthrow the government
INSURRECTION
A rising in open resistance to established authority; a rebellion
so as the guilty party is a common murderer (we've already established this) he is not
covered by either of the above, but the passage from Lila is:
"When a society is not itself threatened, as in the execution of individual criminals, the issue
becomes more complex. 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."
The 'society' is no longer threatened (there'es only three of us left), there is no question of
treason or insurrection, we're not at war and we have the 'evil' bugger in irons (this was
necessary for the trial) so accordingly we are not morally justified in killing him. The solution
seems to be that we build some form of secure confinement and contain him or request
assistance from a friendly neighbouring state to do similar.
Do note though that Pirsig does not say that if a person is guilty of treason or insurrection (or
in times of war) it is ALWAYS NECESSARY to kill that person - only where there is a clear
and identifiable threat to the society. A possible good case to illustrate this was the
execution of Caucescu after the uprising in Rumania in 1989. He was a clear threat to the
new order and could have commanded further counter-revolution. The revolutionaries tried
him and (IMO justifiably) executed him. If he had survived and provided a counter-revolution
he would have (justifiably?) executed the earlier insurrectionists (an alternative name for
revolutionaries - it depends on which side your allegiances lie : ) ).
> Additionally would care to define a society? Western civilyzation? A country? a state? a
> county? a town? your neighborhood? your circle of friends?
A Society:
>From the C.O.D.
1 the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently.
2 a social community (all societies must have firm laws).
3 a a social mode of life. b the customs and organization of an ordered community.
4 Ecol. a plant or animal community.
5 a the socially advantaged or prominent members of a community (society would not
approve). b this, or a part of it, qualified in some way (is not done in polite society).
6 participation in hospitality; other people's homes or company (avoids society).
7 companionship, company (avoids the society of such people).
8 an association of persons united by a common aim or interest or principle (formed a music
society).
Society is not a precise term (I would personally identify it as a Fuzzy term). Any definition
can be challenged. It is an emergent process, not confined to humans, which can encompass
a number of conditions and values.
Western Civilization:
The rip-off scumbags that subjugate the third world :)
Country:
An area of land delineated by a legally specified boundary
State:
An area of land delineated by a legally specified boundary
County:
An area of land delineated by a legally specified boundary
Town:
An area of land delineated by a legally specified boundary
Neighbourhood:
A fuzzily delineated area in which individuals co-exist
Circle of friends:
Look in your address book and decide
>
> 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?
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.
> 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.
So the case for long periods of incarceration is entirely supportable within the MoQ and there
is little justification for the death penalty whatevere the circumstances. When a criminal -
especially one with homicidal tendencies - is incarcerated he is no longer a threat to the
society within which he exists (or existed) and a moral conclusion is brought about.
>
> 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.
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.
>
> 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?
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.
>
> 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.
I completely agree - please don't take offense if I sometimes seem to be a touch pompous - I
am, after all, English :)
>
> 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!
Or maybe he thought it so blindingly obvious that he didn't need to state it specifically - Lila
could have gotten awfully stuffy otherwise. I'm not (and I don't believe that Pirsig is either)
saying that Capital Punishment is impossible (take the Caucescu case) but there must be an
almost undeniably obvious justification - where no alternative is available.
>
> 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.
In some cases I would agree with you but for the most part, in a society which prides itself on
formal and proper justification of its actions then a compelling case needs to be presented in
order to properly justify the taking of a life (any life - I don't confine this statement to human
life).
> You equate social patterns of quality with the state and this is not the
> case!
Not exclusively. Social patterns of value do define the state but they additionally define other
social institutions and mechanisms. I would consider companies and multinationals to be
Social patterns alongwith cities etc.
> 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!
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
Justice and the law are STATIC value patterns. Justice IS law. If you want to improve justice
then improve the law!
> 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.
Many of these patterns that you refer to are derived from Biological origins - revenge, greed,
avarice etc. It is important to differentiate Biological and Social patterns of value. The
Victorians identified many of these patterns and named them 'VICES' with all the semantic
baggage that accompanies such terms. I think that they may have been right. Victorian
society (give or take a few decades) was the birthplace of modern Intellectual value - the rise
of science, the destruction of unquestioned religious belief etc. There was enormous conflict
in this period in an attempt to establish the Social dominance of Biological patterns of value
and Intellectual dominance of Social patterns of value. Much of this is identifiable in Lila and
Pirsigs sources. The Victorians made plenty of mistakes, don't get me wrong, but they also
established a new world order - and a dynamic order it was. Unfortunately, it's culmination -
as Pirsig points out - was:
"The period ended when, after having defined for all time what “Truth” and “Virtue” and
“Quality” are, the Victorians and their Edwardian successors sent an entire generation of
children into the trenches of World War I on behalf of these ideals. And murdered them. For
nothing. That war was the natural consequence of Victorian moral egotism."
There's an incredibly important lesson here.
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:24 BST