Hi Sam, Elliot, Erin, Scott, Wim, John B., All:
Interesting responses so far on the subject of human rights. It
suggests to me that the subject is perhaps critical to reaching
agreement on the meaning of the MOQ and to putting its view of reality
into practice . . . if we can agree that such an outcome is indeed of
value.
Erin sees little conflict between social and individual rights saying,
"Individual morality benefits you directly and collective morality benefits
you indirectly." He believes that "the more we embrace a global
community the more individual freedom we have."
Scott sees little of value in Erin's position. For him, "collective behavior
is dangerous precisely because it expresses the interest, quality,
thinking, etc. of only some members of the collective," leaving the rights
of the individual/intellectual "squashed."
Sam objects to Scott's individual/intellectual composite. In fact, he
sees Pirsig's intellectual level as "a flaw in the MOQ," preferring that the
level be "individual" to reflect his belief that people "have quality per se."
To emphasize the intellectual as Pirsig does is, in Sam's view, "seeing
human beings as means rather than ends."
Elliot sees the social level as dominant in the "human rights" concept.
For him, "human rights are a compromise, a concession made by the
social level to prevent the intellectual level from reducing it to bare
essentials. The term 'right' illustrates that inherent in 'human rights' is
society first, then individuals if there is room."
I've probably left someone out who expressed an opinion on this
subject. I also may have misrepresented those cited above. If so, I
apologize. My original question was whether the list of rights
enumerated by Pirsig was complete. So far, that question hasn't been
answered, at least directly. His list, you'll recall, is based on "the moral
right of intellect to be free of social control." The list was:
.freedom of speech
.freedom of assembly
.freedom of travel
.trial by jury
.habeas corpus
.government by consent
Compare this to the speech General Eisenhower gave to the troops on
the eve of D-Day as reported by the historian Stephen Ambrose:
"Eisenhower was a product of and a believer in . . . the rights of every
person: the right to say what he or she thinks; to vote for his or her
representative; to work at whatever job suits him and live where he
pleases; to worship as he chooses, freely; to be assured of a fair trial if
he is accused of any crime. That is what Eisenhower said in 1944, on
the eve of the D-Day invasion, to all his troops"
For both Pirsig and Eisenhower there's no mention under the rubric of
human rights of a right to shelter, food, clothing, medical care, or old
age security. Was it immoral for Pirsig and Eisenhower to omit these
things? What about the right of self-defense? Of property? Of a job?
To make the world a better place seems to me to be largely a matter of
identifying and enforcing, through social cooperation, those rights that
will ensure the continuation of the intellectual level. We all agree (I
think) that it, as Scott said, " . . . it starts with what you can do here and
now, to/for yourself to begin to improve (things). I think we have to work
on ourselves first -- the social will follow."
Maybe if we identify the rights we, as individuals, would be willing to
fight and die for, it would be a start.
Platt
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 - 16:02:14 BST