Wim, DMB, all
Maybe I would have been better understood had I said, " I'm leary of the
proliferation of laws written in the 'rights' format."
Wim said
> In your 10/5 21:22 -0500 definition I am definitely an egalitarian:
> 'an advocate or supporter of the belief that all people should have equal
> political, social, and economic rights'.
The definition was not "mine" per se but straight out of a dictionary.
I am not sure what the relevance anyone being subscriber to
this idea has to do with the MoQ, but I think wrapped up in the term
"egalitarian" are a couple of meaningful questions which bears on this
"human rights" thread:
1) Does the MoQ advocate or support egalitarianism?
2) How does this support, or lack of, tie into the idea of "human rights.?"
My simple answer to number 1 is. NO.
First "political, social, and economic rights" all pertain to the social
level. So unlike the MoQ, an egalitarian seems to advocate or support a
system which privileges social values over all others.
Second is the term that is often breezed bye: "EQUAL", as in
"EQUAL....fill in the blank.... RIGHTS". Determining "equal" requires a
value judgement and under the MoQ we read:
"The reason there is a difference between individidual evaluations of
quality is that although Dynamic Quality is constant, these static
patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different
static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static
patterns influence his final judgement. That is why their is some
uniformity among individual value judgements but not complete
uniformity." SODV pp 12-13
"Some uniformity" is not "equal". "Equal" is "complete uniformity."
"Rights" laws started with the theory "a government shall make no laws
which limits xyz rights" and in time they evolve to "a government shall
provide equal "completely uniform" xyz rights to all". In order to do
this "value judgements" must be made "completely uniform" and the only
practical way to assure this is, to as much as possible, eliminate
"value judgements". This is done by prescribing what is "equal" prior to
any appeal, such as in sentencing guidelines, hiring quotas, and other
unthinking, uncaring, inflexible, bureaucratic rules and regulations.
Again I suggest, particularly you DAVID, to get a copy of "Death of
Common Sense" and as difficult as it will be try to see the practical
consequences 'rights' law proliferation.
Wim went on to say:
> Rights are never absolute, because they are part of a set of rights.
In general I agree, however using the MoQ level structure I think one
can formulate a relationship of "rights" which suggests that some are
more privileged, closer to "absolute", than others. You do this in
effect by standing the MoQ on its head. For those of you familiar with
Wilber and his use of the terms span and depth, I maintain that this
interpretation of the MoQ
supports the idea that the "absoluteness" of "rights" is more directly
proportional to span, as opposed to depth. In other words those "rights" which
are most absolute, most inviolate, are physical, inorganic, "rights" and
they build up from there becoming less and less absolute along the way.
Now some will object, claiming the MoQ's basic structure is based on the
"right" of the higher, more evolved level to dominate the lower. What
they have forgotten is these higher level "rights" are based in,
supported by the stable underlying levels and are thus limited, or
constrained by rules, laws, morals, of lower levels which they must
respect sufficiently well if overall system stablility is to be maintained.
For instance one constitution starts the list of "inalienable rights"
with life. Under the MoQ the most "absolute" right under this category
would be the inorganic, physical
right to air, followed closely by water, physical space, maybe then up
to the biological right to food etc. I can already hear the "Well,
Duhhh's" in one quarter. But with care, one can pragmatically (ie what
consequences does this proposed "right" have on the lower, more absolute
"rights" have) work one's up through the levels to the intellectual. So
while it maybe moral or right to allow an idea of a 'right' to destroy a
society, if that idea destroys the social, or any other level it is not moral.
For example in conjuction with the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East, I
previously posted a quote by an Israeli settler in which he claimed that
it is his "birth-RIGHT" to live in
Israel. ie BECAUSE HE WAS BORN A JEW, HE HAS THIS RIGHT. This right
presumably extends to any person of the Jewish faith. In other words if
I were to honestly convert to Judeaism I have the RIGHT to move to
Israel, settle anywhere I might, and if necessary take up arms, and KILL
anyone who would try to remove me, and be morally RIGHT in doing so.
These are the "rights" of which I speak Is this not a rightful appeal of
social based (religious) 'right' over say an Arab's physical and
biological 'right' to a place to live and grow some olives, even if he
was there prior to my arrival?. Are you both claiming I have this
RIGHT? Could both of you please explain to me, preferably using direct
quotes from either Lila or ZMM, how the MoQ definitively supports this claim?
3WD
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 - 16:02:15 BST