Hi Rick,
well, everyone knows what I think about death penalty (if anyone is
interested just look at my last message on it -to Wim, Horse and...
Rick!- ),
[From: "Marco" <marble@inwind.it>, To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>,
Sent: Mon, Febr 11, 2002 11:07 PM, Subject: Re: MD MOQ and solipsism]
so I won't repeat myself. Just, I want to add that Pirsig is quite clear, so
I don't see how is it possible to state that the MOQ in unclear on it. The
question is "complex" as every moral conflict is complex. "Like in a Zen
koan (which also originally meant "case history") the [brujo] anecdote
didn't have any single right answer but rather a number of possible meanings
that kept drawing Phaedrus deeper and deeper into the moral situation that
was involved". But complex is not unsolvable.
Let me concentrate on these questions you raise:
RICK
> But I
> believe his ultimate point is that the morality of an individual execution
> depends on the level of threat a criminal poses to the social structure,
> which in turn depends on the stability of that social structure.
Well, not the morality, I'd say, just a tendency: a less stable social
structure tends to be less moral towards its citizens. This is true for
capital punishment as well as for the other human rights. Curbing human
rights is an immoral shortcut to stability. It is not accidental that the
newer countries are also easily military leaded dictatorships. The terrific
thing is to see a very stable country, the USA, tending nevertheless to be
quite immoral on this issue.
RICK
> Pirsig says it is generally immoral for society to kill a criminal because
> he still a potential source of ideas. Even a prisoner who wants to die is
a
> potential source of ideas. I can't think of any reason it would be any
more
> moral for him to kill himself (and destroy a source of ideas) than it
would
> be for society to do so.
Suicide is not a society killing a source of ideas. It is an idea killing
its own source. It is completely an intellectual level conflict. In facts,
the social level could not succesfully forbid suicide.... the only thing you
can do is to convince the potential suicide by means of a better idea that
there are better options.
> RICK
> ... barring a real
> threat to the social structure itself, it is immoral to prematurely end,
or
> possibly even fail to preserve, any potential source of ideas (there may
be
> interesting implications for abortion politics here).
But again it is not society that performs abortion. It is the free choice of
the mother. Let's remember that when abortion was formally banned, it was
nevertheless committed. And it's a fact that legal abortion kills less than
illegal abortion. The best thing a society can do is giving the mother good
alternatives. Actually when this option is considered mainly for
"social-cultural" reasons (poverty, or -in many countries still happens-
shame) it is not very difficult to convince the mother otherwise. This is
what concretely a society can do: help the mother when she's in troubles.
This, on the social side. On the individual side, as said, not all the
mothers are in troubles. The majority, in our western countries, probably
not. I think it is immoral to destroy a "source of ideas", unless the
pregnancy is a risk for the mother herself. The question is "when" is it
possible to talk of "source of ideas"? Fetus? Embryo? Following this line it
comes out that even sexual abstinence is immoral! IMO only science could
say that, certainly not religion.
Ciao,
Marco
An idea killing a source of ideas? Homicide? Not so fast.
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 - 16:01:58 BST