DENIS TRIES TO TACKLE A HARD QUESTION, FINDS OUT HE CAN'T DO IT AND
RESORTS TO MYSTICISM TO GET HIMSELF OUT OF TROUBLE.
Hi, Ken and alii,
Since I have a vested interest in getting you (all) to agree with my
views (namely preventing Pirsigians becoming hardcore moralists, who
might then find out about my immoral ways and make a social pariah out
of me), I will try to shed some light on the deluded notion that the MoQ
is a moral guide for everyday life.
Clark wrote:
> In my mind your questions regarding sentience and abortion are tougher. I
> think no one would say that it is OK to kill a newborn but is there some
> mystical occurrence at the breaking of the umbilical cord or does existence
> begin at the moment of fertilization? I don't know the answer to these
> questions. Do we prefer the life of a thirty year old mother over the
> newborn? The concensus seems to be yes since the mother has an established
> life and connections but what about the case of two functioning adults? ?Do
> we prefer the older or the younger or should we base those decisions on
> their worth to society?
> Do you think Dr. Kevorkian is correct about euthanasia. When does life
> become not worth saving? Should we regard humans in the same way that we
> view our pets? Is it OK to kill animals so that we can eat them? We are
> carnivores so where is the line between conscience and practicality? Give
> me some answers-I am going nuts. Ken
Funny, you take the exact example I wanted to use to demonstrate that
the MoQ isn't the ultimate tool to solve just about any moral conflict
we might come across.
Abortion. Hoboy, what a tough one. OK, lets try to see what the MoQ has
to say about this one.
First, we must see what moral patterns clash in this one.
Mainly, I believe we can divide them between the right of women to
dispose of their body as they see fit, and the right of the foetus to
live. (*)
Some religious people might talk about the soul of the foetus, and call
abortion murder, but I don't think the concept of individual souls has
any reason to stay in the MoQ. We are patterns who evolue in response
to, or through DQ. Thus, if we must talk about our soul, we must accept
that we share it with the rest of the universe, or if we want to go
mystic, that our soul *is* the universe. As such, we have no hope of
killing it, or even ever dying. We are the universe, or in my parlance,
"we are the different PoVs by which the universe experiences itself".
>From there, we can take two positions. On one hand, we can say that
womens' rights are an intellectual pattern (like human rights) an that
the foetus, being only an unconscious biological pattern, is lower on
the evolutionary scale, and thus can be aborted if it can preserve the
social comfort of women.
On the other hand, we can take the long view and say that the foetus is
a potential human being and thus on the same level than womens' rights.
Thus, since the right to abort was created mainly to preserve the social
and biological comfort of women (the intellectual level preserving the
lower ones)(*), and since the right to live of the foetus is also
preserving his (future) intellectual patterns, then abortion is immoral
and should be made illegal.
Which view should we favor, the synchronic one (the present state) or
the diachronic one (the possibilities of the future)?
Mu. :-)
Denis
(*) the parts thus marked are those I'm pretty sure are right, but not
absolutely sure. Thus, if anyone can offer another interpretation of the
moral patterns involved, or the purpose of the right to abort, I'll be
glad to revise my views on the subject (if I agree, that is). ;^)
PS : BTW, Ken, while I often make the same lapsus, we are omnivores, not
carnivores. But RMP be damned, I'm still eating meat (told you I was
immoral). LOL
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST