From: speterson@fast.net
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 17:07:28 BST
>From "speterson" <speterson@fast.net>
Sender: speterson@fast.net
From: "speterson" <speterson@fast.net>
Reply-to: speterson@fast.net
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD morals
X-Mailer: WebMAIL to Mail Gateway v2.0q
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 11:15:54 -0500
Message-id: <3d9dbeba.386.269167349@fast.net>
> Steve,
>
> I suggest you take a strawl on MOQ.org and some things
> will become
> clear(er), check out a few essays, like Anthony Mcwatts,
> scroll the archives
> pick out some things you find interesting, good luck'
>
> davor
I read the McWatts essay and I found it helpful.
This point in particular relates to where I didn't
understand how MOQ clears up moral issues:
"11. Why is evolution an important consideration in the MOQ?
Evolution is an important consideration in the MOQ as a
code of ethics can be generated from the four
basic levels of quality patterns. Though each level of
static patterns have emerged from the one below, each
level follows its own different rules i.e. there are
physical laws such as gravity (inorganic), the laws of the
jungle (biology), co-operation between animals (society),
and the ideas of freedom and rights (intellect). It
is important to note that the different laws of the four
static levels often clash e.g. adultery (biological
good) v. family stability (social good).
The MOQ combines the four levels of patterns to produce one
overall moral framework based on an
evolutionary hierarchy (as seen on the MOQ diagram). The
entity that has more freedom on the
evolutionary scale (i.e. the one that is more Dynamic) is
the one that takes moral precedence. So, for
instance, a human being is seen as having moral precedence
over a dog because a human being is at a
higher level of evolution. "
This is the argument used to explain why vegetarianism is
more moral than eating meat when vegetables are widely
available.
My question is in what sense is a human at a higher level of
evolution than a dog or a vegetable for that matter? We
both have undergone the exact same number of years of
evolution so there is no true scientific argument to make.
Would I be correct to say that people generally apply a
societal value of eating things that seem to be least like
us first? In this way eating a dog is more moral than
eating a monkey which is I guess how I tend to look at it
assuming its not my dog. I guess this would still lead us
to vegetarianism.
I think the article would suggest that this evolutionary
argument has to do with freedom, but I don't know how I
would phrase such an argument. Also, some people have more
freedom than others. Is it moral to eat them first?
The quote from Pirsig that you sent would perhaps suggest
that we can talk about morality within each level but that
we can't favor one level over another?
Steve
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:52 GMT