RE: MD Moral Judgement

From: Erin Noonan (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 23 2002 - 01:59:30 BST


>Hi Darrell
>
>On 22 Oct 2002 at 8:26, Oldehippie1947@aol.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Horse, etal.
>>
>> All of your arguments for judging other people make sense, and there is
only one argument to
>> sport my argument. Anytime judge the value of another human being you
support the power and
>> oppression of a society that marginalizes people. If you recognize this
principle you will see that
>> each time you judge another you encourage others to judge you meaning that
you violate
>> yourself each time you violate another human being. Therefore if you wish
to create a society
>> where being fully human is a productive lifestyle we only need to end this
practice. The only
>> method that will accomplish this is to promote and develop empathy in
society. It could be
>> incorporated in the school system and even in corporate training. It is
possible but if it is to
>> happen it should begin in academia.
>
>The main stumbling block here seems to be the semantics surrounding the term
>judgement. In everyday use the term has strong connotations of condemnation
based on
>perceptions of a social nature. However within the MoQ it is at the root of
our interaction
>with the world on all levels. Reality is a moral order (one of the
fundamental properties
>of the MoQ) and we continually assess our interactions with the world. We do
this by
>experiencing and categorising patterns of value - this is what creates the
world.
>Judgement works at all static levels and with experience of Dynamic Qualilty.
Not just
>OUR experience but all experience from the ground up. Even without the
presence of
>humans judgement occurs and this judgement is a moral judgement. A causes B
(SOM)
>is judgement free but B prefers precondition A (MoQ) is a moral judgement.
Precondition
>A is better than precondition C.
>When humans make judgements they are doing no more than this but in a more
>complex way to the nth degree because we are so much more complex and are
created
>by all levels of value patterns and by our unique ability to react to Dynamic
Quality.
>If our judgements were limited to social patterns of value I would agree with
you but they
>aren't, so I don't.
>We continually hear examples of judgements of others based on purely social
patterns
>of value and whilst these may have validity on occasion they are not the full
picture.
>With the introduction of a quality-centerd order to the world moral
judgements gain a
>validity that was previously absent.
>
>Horse
>

HORSE: In everyday use the term has strong connotations of condemnation based
on
>perceptions of a social nature. However within the MoQ it is at the root of
our interaction with the world on all levels.

ERIN: Okay but if a judgement has a bad connotation in everyday use then
when talking with somebody not familiar with MOQ wouldn't it be better to use
a neutral word such as discrimination?
Also let me point out the value of judging actions rather
then the person. Everybody has SOME inorganic,
biological, social, and intellectual value.
So these judgments are being made on something more specific such as the
actions
you observe so why not limit the judgements to the specifics (actions)
themselves? (i.e. if the judgements are being made on
a mircro level then why not keep them there)

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 - 10:38:00 GMT