ERIN:
> Okay I completely understand that it is immoral to kill another because
their
> ideas could be realized as valuable. So in a sense the MOQ doesn't allow
you
> to "judge" the sources of ideas as valuable or not, time will tell.
RICK
YES!!! This is also the essence of pragmatism.
ERIN:
But if one
> of those ideas is that " allowing assisted suicide for terminally ill
> patients is more moral then keeping them alive unwillfuly for any
potential
> ideas." it doesn't seem like it gets a chance for the "time will tell"
test.
RICK
It doesn't get a chance for the MOQ because it contradicts the very
metaphysical basis of human rights (i'm giving away my essay, oh well).
This is the part of the MOQ I believe most people have trouble coming to
grips with. The 'metaphysical basis of human rights' is narrow and
therefore the MOQ often produces moral judgments that don't align with
traditional concepts of morality (and so seem counterintuitive to many).
ERIN
> I guess I am having a hard time figuring out the difference whether we are
> protecting the ideas or the sources of ideas.
RICK
Ultimately, we are protecting the ideas. The MOQ's prescribed method for
acheiving this end is via the protection of the sources of ideas.
ERIN
Our intellect is always judging
> ideas so why is looking at the morality of death penalty, assisted
suicide,
> abortion from the intellectual level not allowing the this?
RICK
It allows it. But all other things being equal these things are generally
immoral.
rick
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