Hey Bo,
BO
> Rick will know that the capital punishment has been discussed many times
> before and that Pirsig's explanation of why there should be no such hasn't
> always been understood or acclaimed.
RICK
Yes... but I think it's always worth taking another run at it.
BO
> ...so let me start with some sort of the a beginning. When we ask ...Does
> society have the moral right to kill it sounds as if all countries and
states are
> social-value focussed and that all individuals are representatives of
> intellectual value, but this I think is not the case.
RICK
All countries and states must be social-value focused to an extent or
else
they'll get gobbled up by the biological (destroying society and the ideas
it supported).
Also, all individuals are certainly NOT representatives of
intellect, I believe Pirsig's argument is that they are all POTENTIAL
representatives of intellect (even Ted Bundy MIGHT have a beneficial idea
someday).
Furthermore, even if you don't agree with that you must admit that
every individual is a potential OBJECT of intellect... that is, even if Ted
Bundy doesn't have a beneficial idea, perhaps somebody else would interview
him and come up with a beneficial idea that they could not have had without
Ted to study (this is how the FBI designed its serial killer profiling
program).
BO
[the MOQ's] "ethics" only says that the higher level is better, it is not
concerned with INTRA-level affairs.
That much said, Pirsig says that the death penalty issue is an INTER-level
conflict; one of Intellect vs Society...
RICK
No, he thinks it's both. Look at pages 184-185. He introduces the question
of whether it's scientifically immoral for society to kill an individual in
the 4th full paragraph on p184 (the one beginning, "Is it scientifically
moral...etc.). In the next paragraph (the one beginning, "An evolutionary
morality would at first...") he discuss the question in the context of
INTER-level conflicts (that is, when society as a whole is threatened). In
the following paragraph on p185 (the one beginning, "When a society itself
is not threatened..."), he discusses the question in the context of
INTRA-level conflicts (which is why it's becomes more "complex").
BO
> To conclude: Capital Punishment is wrong ....TO INTELLECT ... because
> punishment by definition is a social thing, and intellect doesn't approve
of
> anything social-value-related ...
RICK
How could the "Intellect" of your theory form a "rational, metaphysical
basis of human rights" if it approves of NOTHING social? Pirsig's
"Intellect" is INDIFFERENT to social values beyond the extent to which they
effect Intellect. Intellect disapproves of capital punishment because it
destroys potential sources of ideas when those sources could be preserved
through incarceration.
BO
...had it had its way all punishment would have been abolished!
RICK
I don't think this makes much sense. The abolishment of all Social
punishment (law enforcement) would destroy society. Intellect doesn't value
the destruction of society any more than society values the destruction of
biology. The higher level values complete CONTROL over the lower level,
not the lower level's destruction.
BO
This goes for all levels, the upper one's purpose is to control
> (the values of) the lower. Just one single example: Society's effort to
control
> biology's sexuality by dress rules for women and then Intellect - to
control
> Society - encouraging nudity and sexual liberty under its own banner of
> freedom.
RICK
It sounds like your treading dangerously close to the Hippie's mistake of
confusing Intellectual Quality with Biological Quality because both are at
odds with Society.
BO
> IMO this is "Occam" explanation, while the "individual as a source of
ideas" is
> a bit contrived to say the least. For instance as Zach and Rick points to:
a
> killer's "ideas" might as well be of how to kill again and of revenge and
hatred.
> Another demonstration of the futility of the idea-intellect definition.
RICK
Contrived? The 'individual as a source of ideas" is Pirsig's express
answer
to capital punishment. And it's as simple as saying, "don't kill people if
you don't have to because you never know what ideas they may have or
inspire."
It also makes much more sense than your explanation which would
cast each level as suicidal, bent on the destruction of what lies beneath
it. Higher level want CONTROL of lower levels, not the destruction of lower
levels.
BO
...What this means for the Death Penalty issue is that given the right
circumstances existence may have to revert to social value's
RICK
Well, somehow, we agree again here. Given the right circumstances it
becomes moral for society to forsake Intellectual concerns and protect
itself.
thanks
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