WIM:
1b WHAT PATH TOWARD DQ FOLLOWS FROM APPLYING THAT METHOD?
Sub-questions are:
What is the most Meaningful intellectual pattern of values with which to
judge the balance between stability and versatility of a social pattern
of values?
R:
I think your subquestion IS the answer. The path to social quality (broadly)
is to establish a balance between stability and versatility. I would perhaps
add that we should seek to maximize quality across the greatest span and
depth (depth for me is through the ladder of levels -- building directly into
the intellectual; span is across the widest possible range of patterns -- in
this case societies and individuals.)
I also think the question should be clarified as 'what path toward SOCIAL
QUALITY follows...' That is, after all, the topic.
W:
To me that most Meaningful intellectual pattern of values (applicable to
judging that balance) appears to be an intellectual pattern of values with
at its core 'it is better to have dignity'.
R:
All of the essential rights basically point to FREEDOM -- the freedom to
pursue, speak, influence the government, etc AS LONG AS YOU DON"T HURT
OTHERS. This oversimplifies a bit, as there can be relative harm (freedom to
speech can be used to harm the reputation of another for example by sharing
facts on a politician's behavior). If you really study these 'rights'
though, I believe we will see that they are carefully crafted over social
history to maximize quality and minimize harm. Quality rights maximize
freedom, maximize versatility, maximize quality and minimize harm.
These rights have evolved over time as societies have progressed. They have
emerged in societies that were balanced between stable and versatile (freedom
is after all a necessary ingredient in versatility) and that found how to
maximize quality across span and depth. In other words, they have been found
through trial and error and codified into social practice.
I guess I could argue whether freedom is the PATH to quality or an emergent
TACTIC, but this would be mincing words to no real benefit.
I will say your 'right to dignity' is very, very questionable to me. More
below.
W:
I was very charmed by Jonathan's proposal. This 'right to dignity' fits in
very well with my religious conviction as a Quaker that every human being
has direct intimate access to divine guidance (also formulated as 'that of
God in everyone') and should be treated accordingly.
R:
If your intellectual/aesthetic/direct experience/judgement contradicted your
religious upbringing, what would you do? How should children brought up as
devil worshippers or godless Nazis apply your reasoning? (btw I am not
rejecting the value of coherence between social mythology and intellect, I am
just asking what you suggest if or when decoherence occurs.)
W:
Dignity is -unlike status, unlike fame and fortune- an intellectual value.
It implies having the possibility to uphold one's personal truth, integrity
and identity. Unlike social quality it is not relative in the sense of being
dependent on the dignity of others. (Status, fame and fortune can only be
measured as relative quantities.) It is relative in another sense however:
one can only have dignity relative to the amount and complexity of one's
truth, integrity, identity etc..
R:
The issue you are getting at is that individuals are of immense potential
value. I wish you would just say it that way though. (and fortune/wealth is
not STRICTLY relative -- it is not a zero-sum situation)
W:
A simple-minded person
can display the same dignity as a Gandhi with less personal
intellectual values. Most animals have no personal intellectual values at
all and can be used for human purposes without loss of dignity ... if only
they are treated humanely, for otherwise the human involved loses part of
its dignity. I think I read on this list (but can't trace back when and
whom), that a chimpanzee will beg for its life when under threat of being
killed by a human. If that is true, I think chimpanzees should not be killed
for sport or other human purposes, as humans should not be killed by other
humans for selfish purposes. Maybe dolphins, who recognize and act upon the
need of drowning humans (a different species!) are in the same category.
Their 'right to dignity' should at least contain a 'right to life'.
R:
I find your reasoning strange. I would prefer simply to say that people have
potential to add value to themselves and others and should be
encouraged/liberated to do so. Other animals are of value too, and should be
treated that way. Advanced, intelligent mammals are capable of a wider range
of experience and potential, and are of more value than a bacterium. The
'dignity' angle offers nothing to me.
W:
Identifying 'rights' is only one of the ways of evaluating and prescribing
human behavior. Other ways are identifying 'duties' and 'responsibilities'.
They are logically related: to the extent that one is 'responsible' for
something or someone else, one has a 'duty' to safeguard its of her/his
'rights'. Evaluating and prescribing human behavior is the way in which
intellectual values intervene in the social level (create exceptions to
social patterns of values) and the way in which they can enhance their
balance between stability and versatility.
R:
Disagree somewhat. Duties are requirements or controls or limitations on
behavior. These are the antithesis of freedom. I do agree that Quality
societies do usually prescribe some responsibilities, and that these can add
value if used carefully and in moderation, and that freedom (rights) and
responsibilities are logically related, but mainly in the way black is
related to white or yin to yang.
W:
This type of logic, relating 'rights', 'duties' and 'responsibilities' to
each other, should also be at the core of the intellectual pattern of values
I would choose. The relevance of such an intellectual pattern of values is
obvious, I hope: To what extent does the US government have responsibility
for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay and for those countless millions
everywhere on the globe that may radicalize into terrorists because of a
lack of dignity which they -rightly or wrongly- hold US foreign policy
responsible for...?
R:
Speaking of yin and yang! I would word your point quite differently. I would
say the detainees and radicals of the world are of value too. It behooves us
all to ensure that they maximize their contributions to personal, social and
intellectual value (and that we minimize value destruction). The role of my
elected/appointed representatives in government is to treat humans as
valuable while also prohibiting some from causing severe harm to others.
When they use violence, I expect my government to protect people from harm.
If violent governmental responses are necessary to ensure quality is
maintained, I expect violence to be used (though as sparingly as possible,
and only where doing harm prevents even greater harm). The goal is maximum
quality across the widest depth/span.
Your implication that the US government is responsible for global dignity is
exactly the type of abuse and disfunctionality that I fear these terms like
'dignity' and 'responsibility' lead to. If you want YOUR government
responsible for global dignity, please feel free to give it a try. I am
pretty sure it won't lead to any type of quality or progress. I suspect it
will lead only to a cycle of victimology. I could be wrong though...
W:
How can we establish which 'rights' and 'duties' someone has and which
'responsibilities for whom/what'?
With that question we are starting to leave the 'core' of the intellectual
pattern of values of my choice behind. So this is a good question to start
with in my next post ... if the foregoing can meet with your approval.
R:
I accept that maximum freedom / minimum harm are critical for social
progress. I reject your core concepts on dignity and duty though.
Risky
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 - 16:01:57 BST