Hello everyone
Bill wrote:
>Hello ,
>
>I've been reading along...I snip this bit from Clark because it filled
>me with questions:
>
>"Do we split a perfectly evolved moral molecule and use its parts to make
>a bomb to kill about 130,000 people with two bombs? We did it and called it
>moral because not doing it would have resulted in more deaths. Which
>instance is less moral?"
>
>I remember hearing this idea in school that it *was* moral to fry all of
these
>people, but I also remember that the justification was that it would
>save more *American* lives. This sets off all these questions in my
>mind and I find that I just don't have nearly enough information to
>make a solid judgement. It seems that even if my knowledge of the
>collision of Japanese and American values dating to that point in history
was
>impeccable, I still would be unable to make a proper judgement because
>I can't see the other stream of possibility that would've unfolded had
>the lone nuclear bombing not occurred.
>
>Just can't see it, so I just can't say. The only statement of truth I
>can make is that the Japanese "had it coming"...not that they necessarily
>deserved it, just that they "had it coming". That's not a judgement
>but a clever sort of answer to an impossible question like the old
>algebra question, how long is a train? (twice the distance between
>from the front to the middle).
>
>My point is that an MOQ guide to morality would have to be extremely
>exhaustive to really get at the difficult questions. People pretty
>much knew already that it is the right thing to do for a human being
>to knock off a germ to save another human being. You've gotta do better
then that!
>
>Clark, can *you* say what was more moral regarding that first nuclear
>bombing? If you can and your notion holds together, then *that* will
>be a true moral guide. Until somebody uses the MOQ to solve some
>really tough questions, nobody will care much about its quality as a
>moral guide other then to say that it helps to give a bit of
>perspective going in.
Glove:
I don't think I have any answers really but let's put the question of
dropping the bomb into the context of the MOQ. First of all we have no way
of knowing what the future would have been like if the US had NOT dropped
the bombs on Japan. That scenario doesn't exist and has no value. What we
must focus on to the exclusion of all else is the four static quality levels
that form the witness of history, so to speak. To speculate on whether this
would have happened or that would have happened may be intellectually
stimulating but it is useless in the MOQ.
The inorganic level is simply part of the backdrop and can be disregarded.
WWII was not fought on a biological level, it was fought on a social level.
Culture against culture. We're not looking for who was right and who was
wrong, but which culture was more Dynamic. It would be safe to say that the
US emerged as a superpower during WWII because of the emergence of the
intellect as a dominate level over the social. This was most Dynamic.
But wait a minute... remember the MOQ states A does not value B, but rather
B values precondition A. Looking back prior to WWII we see that the social
level in the US had quietly evolved conditions that didn't lead directly to
war, but rather enabled the preconditions necessary for war on such a scale
as WWII.
The intellect was allowed to flourish to a higher degree under the
guidelines established by our founding fathers here in the US. Social wars
are beyond the ability of the biological level to control. The social level
has indoctrinated all members into its structure in one fashion or another.
What made our fore-fathers realize that it was only an individual Bill of
Rights that would ensure Dynamic freedom? The intellect creating a crossing
of cultural boundaries between the Europeans and the Native American tribes?
Perhaps drawing from the "mythos"? Much evidence indicates this is so. This
is a major turning point in world history... perhaps for the first time the
individual intellect was granted inalienable rights over society.
The dropping of the Hiroshima bomb was a statement by the intellect and the
power it has over the social level... a most Dynamic statement. In essence
the intellect said- look here... I am in control now and if there's any
trouble... THIS is what is going to happen. No doubt it was an essential
part of our social evolution but the preconditions for intellectual
dominance were set in place hundreds of years before WWI or II. Therefore
the dropping of the bomb was Dynamically moral according to the
preconditioned times. It was the most Dynamic action for intellect to take.
Dynamic doesn't always mean constructive but destructive as well.
Today preconditions have changed and such action would no longer be
Dynamically moral. Hiroshima taught us that social wars on a world scale
will not be tolerated by the intellect. And unlike the biological level, the
intellect CAN control the social level. Even destroy it. This very scary and
very heady intellectual power resulted in the cold war and massive build-up
of nuclear arms... the intellects attempt at total control?
>
>I've also been wondering about this question of sentience. Just when
>does it begin for the unborn child? Does the unborn child exhibit
>some trait such as restlessness that says it has it? And what about
>the life potential of the fetus who hasn't made it to that stage? Is
>the sentience of a retarded child somehow more of an evolution then the
>life potential of what shows all the signs of being a healthy child
>being born to healthy parents?
Glove:
I have been playing around with a paper on "The Quality of Compassion" and
how it relates to the MOQ. I will publish it to my website when finished...
compassion... I suppose thats the only answer I can give to your very
difficult questions. The Quality of compassion is perhaps the highest moral
action we as a species are capable of, would you agree?
When does life begin? Who can say? I can't. Compassion on the other hand
seems to arise from the intellect perhaps as a counter-action to its
destructive abilities? Is it possible to be both compassionate and ruthless
at the same time? Hmmm... according to the MOQ it is. Perhaps both are
traits of the high value intellect mediating over the low value social.
Why is it better to be compassionate? Are we allowed to hold certain ideals
high while ignoring others and still be compassionate? The preconditions of
culture dictates that I suppose. Does compassion always come with innate
ruthlessness? The MOQ would seem to state that it does. And that's ok. Let's
face it, by the time a person comes across Pirsig's writings, reads them,
digests them and comes here to discuss them, we've already written in stone
what our moral feelings are about whathaveyou. The MOQ is not going to tell
us to change those feelings... it allows us to see that it's ok to have
them.
>
>The only commentary I've heard so far is that the MOQ regards the
>unborn child as biological goo that can be morally aborted just prior to
>its first exhibition of sentience. Not that I'm for or against
>abortion per se. I'm in no position to tell a woman what to do.
>I just can't see where and how one can reasonably make such a judgement.
>
>Maybe if I spent time with the expecting mother I might be able to "divine"
>some sort of proper judgement based on what
>I see or hear from her. But where is the logical basis for such a
>judgement when the future is impossible to see and the circumstance
>nearly impossible to decipher? Medical science might virtually solve
>the abortion question by some kind of new incubation system (maybe,
>maybe not). But what about the woman who just doesn't *want* that
>child to be born. Is her *want* greater then the life potential of
>the fetus? Once again, I can't say although I might encourage her to
>let it live if the circumstances were right.
>
>Can the potential MOQ Moral Guidebook spring into "sentience" to help
>me out here? Or is it more like that old empty algebra answer, merely
>a clever framework for helping us sort available and incoming data?
Glove:
Again I cannot answer you directly. Actually I think that the MOQ is deeply
linked to that old empty algebra answer... both being intellectual
constructs. Maybe clever is all we really have going for us?
Best wishes
glove
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