Hi Roger and LS:
> PLATT Writes:<<<<<<<
> Since social quality is a higher level than biological quality, it is immoral
> to steal the product of another's work (bread) to save your biological
> pattern. >>>>>>>>>
>
> Using my morality chart, I come to a different answer. Humans are significant
> resources to Intellectual PoV’s. It is most moral to protect your own life
> and then accept the social consequences. The most moral course is to protect
> from total destruction , but to accept partial biological punishment – prison
> – etc.
>
> I am not condoning thievery, but the most moral course is that which minimizes
> backward movement away from DQ while maximizing forward movement.
>
> >From an intellectual level, the most moral course is to define social codes
> which discourage theft but to also provide safety nets for those that try to
> take care of themselves but fall upon disaster. Note that this doesn’t mean
> set up a system that allows people not to try. (remembering your concerns with
> how welfare backfires)
Excellent use of the MoQ to settle a moral question. I agree with your
analysis, remembering that Pirsig used a somewhat similar argument
against capital punishment. This post and the one you submitted on
the Keith and Horse models are wonderful examples of how an exchange
of ideas on the Squad can be progressive. Thanks for giving us such
beautifully crafted explanations of your views. They're a delight to
behold.
Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:40 BST