David B. replies briefly to JM.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marder [SMTP:marder@agri.huji.ac.il]
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 1999 5:42 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Blindness spillover.
>
> Hi David B., Ken Clark, Platt and all,
>
> DAVID B.
> > And besides, the question is not the morality
> > of Truman's decision according to Dave or Clark or the USA. The
> question
> > is whether or not it was moral according to the MOQ.
> >
>
> This statement of David's really irked me. Many months ago, I flamed
> and
> ranted against Platt for (what I understood) to be his take that the
> MoQ
> provided some sort of moral compass. Now I find myself cheering PLATT
> all
> the way when he attacks David and his "Harold Walsby"
> pseudophilosophy.
>
[David Buchanan] You cheer Platt for saying the MOQ is a moral
compass, but it really irks you when I say it? Are you judging ideas, or
is this some kind of popularity contest. And in what way is Walsby a
psuedo-philosopher? The hierarchy of ideologies looked like social
psychology to me.
> DAVID B.
> >Well, jeez Clark, you're not making this easy
> >for me are you? I already addressed this issue at some length.
>
> David, I must be as stupid as Ken clark. I certainly saw your
> extremely LONG
> contributions on the atom bomb topic and even read them. Maybe for my
> benefit you will try and put it in SHORT. My own personal experience
> as a
> teacher and writer is that being long winded is a sign I don't
> understand
> what I'm talking about.
>
[David Buchanan] Hey give me a break, will you? I was trying to
summurize some relatively complicated books and then show the relevance
to the MOQ. If it had been any shorter, it might have too
over-simplified.
> What I find most disturbing is your assertion that there is some sort
> of MoQ
> morality that should sweep aside any other moral considerations. I
> believe
> that our "moral compass" is the same moral sense that has been with us
> since
> man first appeared on this planet. What has changed is that we've
> learned to
> extrapolate a long way from action to consequences, and thus are able
> to
> apply that morality much more intelligently. Truman didn't drop the
> atom
> bomb because he thought it would be fun to kill a few thousand
> Japanese. He
> predicted that it would bring Japan to a quick surrender. Fortunately
> that
> judgement proved to be correct; the scenerio of a nuked Japan
> continuing to
> fight is horrible (probably Truman's worst nightmare).
>
[David Buchanan] Here you are refuting a bunch of assertions
that no one made. Perhaps my post should have been even longer that it
was. I certainly never suggested that Truman nuked Japan for the fun of
it. That is obviously an absurd charge. The assertion that disturbs you
most is another one I never made. Sweeps all other moral considerations
aside? No one ever said that, but Lila is an inquiry into morals and I
have been discussing the moral codes that govern the 4 levels. If you've
got some ideas about that, I'd be glad to hear them.
> In contrast, another famous figure of the times with great moral
> integrity
> was Ghandi. He was against fighting the Japanese and the Nazis
> altogether,
> never mind nuking them. I assume that Ghandi and Truman had similar
> goals
> i.e. a world at peace, but they had very different views about how to
> reach
> that goal. In practise we should recognise that despite Ghandi's
> peaceful
> nature, the campaign for Indian independence resulted in many more
> innocent
> deaths than the two atom bombs together.
>
[David Buchanan] Yes, ok. Ghandi was great. Millions and
millions of people have greater freedom because of him and India is now
the largest Democracy in the world. That is something worth cheeting.
But this is the first time I've ever seen his name in the same sentence
with Truman. Apples and oranges.
> >Can't you just smell the irony?
> That was a playful out-of-context quote from David B., who continued
>
> > ... The difference between social and intellectual values is like
> > the difference between prejudice and principle.
> Prejudice isn't the right word here. Social values are "proven" values
> based
> on experience.
> The intellectual process allows judgement based on extrapolation of .
> . .
> . . . experience (what else).
>
[David Buchanan] Its just an analogy, but maybe prejudice isn't
exactly right. The idea, however, is that both of them are prior to
experience in a sense. They are both applied to our experiences, but
differ in quality. Don't read prejudice as bigotry and it will seem less
objectionable. I'm not saying social values are bad, they're just
inadequate because we are supposed to be intellectual creatures by now.
We're supposed to have additional values that are that are more
advanced, not intellect INSTEAD of social values. (I've had to repeat
this point many times now.)
> >You can see the difference.
> Yes David. As an experimental scientists I am very well aware of the
> difference between the actual experience (the data) and
> extrapolations, and
> know their relative values.
>
[David Buchanan] I thought that data was extrapolated from the
actual experience, but you're the scientist.
Oh, by the way, while were on the topic, do you have any
thoughts on the topic?
DMB
>
>
>
> 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
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 - 16:03:14 BST