Hi Kevin and folks
On 7 Mar 99, at 1:47, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
> Horse answered my statement - that justice should left out of the MoQ - by
> questioning whether my following statement does not embody the essence of
> justice:
>
> "Therefore, I say, the MoQ supports the concept behind "innocent until
> proven guilty" because it forces society to prove that the societal harm
> of destructive biological patterns outwiegh the benefits of intellectual
> patterns - i.e. it asks for proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
> Obviously, this is merely procedural pragmatism, not justice.
Apologies for the poor use of words. I spotted it about 5 minutes after I sent the post. I
should have used the word basis instead of essence. The mechanisms/procedures of
justice are, in many ways, as important as the concept of justice and are inextricably bound
together.
> Additionally, one of the reasons I enjoy Pirsig's philosophy is due to its
> replacement of stale terminology with fresh and more dynamic discourse.
> "Justice" has been routed and re-routed through so many philosophies that
> its very conception is vague and tainted.
That the notion of justice has been bent out of shape does not cause its validity to be
lessened. As with other wide-ranging notions (freedom being a prime example) when
applied within a particular context, justice is a vital and dynamic component of ethical
systems. It is only when the term is used without context that it becomes vague.
> (For example, Rawlsian justice would have us deontologically ground our
> concpetion of justice in equality. Socratic and Platonic justice would
> have us give each man his due. Millsian justice would have us
> teleologically not harm others. Which justice were you referring to
> Horse?)
None of the above in particular. I was thinking of Justice in MOQ terms, something that
Pirsig appears to support, whereby in cases of inter-level conflict the mechanisms of
justice support the dominance of the higher level. Intra-level conflict is a seperate though
similar case. What I find interesting about the above statement is that you show that in
each of the (ethical) systems you mention the concept of justice exists. In fact I would go
further and say that within each system the notion of justice is a vital component. This is
also true of all ethical systems of which I am aware. So when you said in your post of 2nd
Feb.
> In answering Rick's quiry, Horse reverts to the vaguest of terms -
> justice. I have no such folly to believe "justice" is necessary in the
> MOQ. Justice is a stuffy Western idea, definately not universal and
> certainly not *absolutely* necessary. I am relutant to invoke that god,
> quite yet.
this would imply that ethical systems are solely a product of western societies, which is
obviously not the case. It is more likely the case that "innocent until proven guilty" exists
traditionally as a corollary of certain western systems.
> The MoQ flies above petty political squabbles and tolerates many
> meandering paths to Quality. I would rather it remain as such - which is
> also why I do not feel the MoQ should take specific stances on specific
> questions, lest it become so dragged down into the mire of culture that
> the ultimate truths, which soar far beyond specific cultures, would fall
> to the ground, perish, and rot.
But as the MOQ is the basis of moral judgement it is bound to become involved in any
sphere where moral judgements are made. Matters of value apply in specific as well as
general and/or abstract questions. It is, additionally, a working and pragmatic philosophy
and should be seen as such. As for "ultimate truths" now there's a good example of
"stuffy Western ideas". :)
Be good...
...and if you can't be good be careful.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST