Hi Platt!
PLATT:
If the US harbored, supported and protected IRA terrorists who gassed and
killed 6000 people in London, the English would be entirely justified to
retaliate
in kind and then some. The more relevant question is: why would retaliation
be
immoral according to the MOQ? I don't find the MOQ denying the morality of a
society's right to self-defense. If you believe otherwise, please cite
chapter and
verse.
ROG:
Let me start with a small detour before addressing your specific comments.
Of all the failings of the MOQ, the greatest, imo, is that Pirsig never
explicitly and systematically rejects trying to avoid destruction and
unnecessary conflict. He focuses so much on conflict between levels that he
seems to get lost and he never concludes that -- where possible -- the most
moral course is that which best maximizes Quality across and between levels
and patterns. Do not misunderstand me. I realize that there are many
inherent and unavoidable conflicts between levels, and between collections of
patterns within a level. Pirsig's model clarifies this wonderfully. He also
correctly stresses that the conficts can drive the advancement of morality.
The point is that the moral solutions are those that find harmony and balance
and even synergy between levels and patterns. Sure societies repress some
biological urges, but they also capitalize on some biological values as well.
The net result of a moral society is, in general, healthier, more dynamic
people within a healthier, more dynamic society.
Certainly you are right, Platt, that it is moral to protect yourself from
attack, and that the MOQ supports this. However, I would offer that the MORE
MORAL course is to find a way to avoid the win/lose confrontation before it
starts. Again, I need to shout out that I do realize that cooperation and
synergy and harmony are not always possible. That is what makes morality so
difficult though. Morality is in some ways knowledge (it would be more
MOQish to say that knowledge is a form of morality, but you know what I
mean). The world is a complex, changing place, and no simple moral edicts
will ever handle the wide diversity of situations that we will encounter.
That is why we are constantly searching for better moral solutions. And I
say that the best solution is to discover or create ways to avoid the
conflict where possible.
Platt, your thoughts (and anyone else's) on this topic would be very much
appreciated.
To address your specific statement (within the context of the MOQ as it
really is, rather than how I am attempting to suggest above), I would take
exception to your comment that the MOQ suggests we "would be entirely
justified to retaliate in kind and then some." I believe that the MOQ does
indeed support self defense, as you argue. I don't believe it preaches
vengeance or escalating violence though. In your defense, I agree that in
this case annihilation of the problem may be the best and most moral
solution, as it may be the only way to ensure defense. So, I guess I agree
that your answer may be right, but that isn't because it justifies
retaliation or vengeance or "an eye-and-then-some for an eye." Have I
confused the issue completely or unfairly distorted your views? If so,
sorry! Please correct me as needed.
Rog
PS -- I Do personally believe the most moral course of action would have been
to find a solution that avoids the violent conflict between cultures all
together. We seem well beyond that point now though. We now need to destroy
the virus, even as we make plans to avoid the future incubation of additional
virulent strains.
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 - 16:01:32 BST