From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Sat Oct 12 2002 - 19:15:34 BST
> Hi Steve:
>
>> Steve:
>> I wonder if I'm using the term "morally superior" correctly. Part of what
>> I mean when I say that a man is morally superior to a dog is that it is
>> more wrong for someone to intentionally do harm to, enslave, kill, eat,
>> etc. a man than it is to do the same to a dog.
>>
>
> Not sure I understand your question. If it is simply whether some people
> are morally superior to others, the answer is clearly "Yes." For
> example, the police are morally superior to the gunman engaged in
> wanton killing around Washington, D.C. Pirsig doesn't hesitate to make
> moral judgments about individuals or groups based on a rational, moral
> order that he claims is as real as a bullet to the head. I agree.
>
> Platt
Platt,
Sorry, I meant to say
>> Are you saying that some people are morally superior to others in this
>> sense
(as in one person's life or a group of people's lives really should have
more value than another's in your system of morality)
OR (I forgot the "or" before)
one person is morally superior to another...
>>only in a capacity for moral behavior?
Your answer suggests you weren't thinking about either of these. I think
what you are saying is that one person is morally superior over another
based on the quality of his actions.
But I'm thinking for example about Conrad's Heart of Darkness where he was
writing for a European audience who felt morally superior to Africans not
based on behavior but on breeding.
The original question was about comparing a dog to a human. We can compare
one human to another based on actions, but I'm not sure it makes sense to
compare a dog's behavior to a human's to judge moral superiority though I
still don't doubt man's moral superiority. Now that I better understand the
evolutionary hierarchy I can see that man has a greater capacity for moral
behavior because of his intellect.
To apply the way I am thinking about moral superiority to your example...The
police are not necessarily morally superior to the DC gunman. If he is
there moral equal (i.e. he has the same capacity for moral behavior), he
needs to be held accountable for his actions which are immoral. If he is
determined to be insane or for some other reason not accountable for his
actions (i.e. he doesn't have the capacity for socially moral behavior), in
that case he would be morally inferior to the police.
Am I making sense? I think I'm finally convinced of my moral superiority
over dogs, anyway.
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 - 10:37:56 GMT