Hi everyone!
Several things have come up in the past few days that I'd like to comment on.
I think I'll relieve everyone of the lengthy cutting & pasting all this would
require and just share with you what I think.
The Intellectual Level vs Sentience
As I see it, sentience first appeared in the Biological level not the Social
level. I can't agree with those who say animals are not sentient. Every type
of animal I've ever had experience with is self-aware. We can argue about
whether animals know they are going to die someday, but that's not the same as
being self-aware. If no one had ever told you you were going to die someday
are you absolutely sure you would know it? Animals are individuals who only
differ from humans by degree.
Only living beings experience DQ
Platt made the point that this is true in effect, if not in fact, because DQ
has moved beyond the inorganic level. The inorganic level being by now so
static that it can no longer respond to DQ. I agree. If the inorganic level
were not very highly static by now, we would be unable to exist. I think the
foundation level must be very static before it can reliably support the higher
levels. But, that is not the same thing as saying that only life can respond
to DQ. That may be true in practice now, but is not the whole truth. I think
it misrepresents what the MOQ is all about to phrase it in that way.
On several suggestions that the MOQ can be used to justify anything
I disagree with this. It seems pretty clear to me that if you apply the moral
codes between levels AND you have correctly identified what level the thing in
question resides in, then it is really pretty easy to determine the correct
course of action. That's what I find most compelling about the MOQ. It is a
reasonable way to evaluate morality - just as Pirsig said.
WWII Japan
It was an immoral act to drop those bombs. Violence is a property of the
Biological level. To use violence to resolve a Social level issue is immoral.
It was immoral for the Japanese to have attacked Pearl Harbor in the first
place, and it was immoral for us to declare war in response. Meeting one
immoral act with another is immoral in itself. We should always be leary of
proponents of an action when it is couched in terms of being "justified" by
some other action. The Moral Codes provide the only valid "justification" for
any action in the MOQ universe.
Abortion
This was bound to come up. Procreation is a function of the Biological level.
So is death. From the point of view of the Social level, it is immoral if the
society in question says it is. From the pov of the Intellectual level it is
not. The Intellectual level looks out for subject/object logic and individual
freedoms. The "pure" Intellectual level is not concerned with the social or
biological cost, in the same way that the Social level is not concerned with
the biological cost of war to defend itself. But we have the capacity to be
smarter than that. We can understand the needs of all the levels, not just the
Intellectual. We have the ability to see the potential costs. The issue is
far more complex than any single Social level law (as in legislation) can
address. It is for this reason that I believe it is immoral to pass laws
banning abortion. Laws are strictly Social level constructs and no matter how
well written, are bound to result in a constriction of Intellectual freedoms
(choice). You may notice how deftly I skirted the abortion issue itself, and
instead focused on the issue of abortion laws. Abortion laws are immoral to
the intellectual level, abortion itself is immoral to the Biological and
(perhaps) Social levels. The answer seems to be "Vote choice but choose life".
- Mary
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