I agree with jc. A person can't fail to knock it out of the park if the
MOQ is used as the bat.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com [SMTP:RISKYBIZ9@aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 11:13 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD MORALITY QUESTIONS
>
>
> 1) How does the MOQ judge the morality of the Union in the American
> Civil
> War?
>
[David Buchanan] All a person needs in order to answer this one
are basic reading comprehension skills. Pirsig gives the answer
explicitly. "John Brown's truth was never an abstraction. It still keeps
marching on." (chapter 13)
> 2) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Congress in the Impeachment
> Process
> of President Clinton?
>
[David Buchanan] The President had legal principles on his
side, not unlike a civil rights attorney. The impeachment supporters
were defending society against biology not, unlike a vice-cop.
Ironically, the conservatives were acting less morally than the
President, at least as far as the impeachment process is concerned.
Bill's affair with Monika was most certainly immoral, but those who
would un-do an election for such an affair were far more immoral, and
we're immoral on a much larger scale.
> 3) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Truman's decision to drop
> nuclear
> bombs on Japan?
>
[David Buchanan] The decision was immoral for several reasons,
but mostly because it favored social values (The cost of the war) over
legal principles that the USA had already adopted and signed. It was a
violation of John Brown's truth even though we had codified it in
international laws. Intentionally killing large numbers of civilians is
no way to demonstrate our respect for human rights.
> Hypothetical situations:
>
> 4) Your wife is eight months pregnant, but is starting to become
> emotionally
> unstable due to some horrible events. She wants a partial birth
> abortion.
> What is the moral course you should take?
>
[David Buchanan] At eight months that life is viable, and if
the mother is "emotionally unstable" and is suddenly contradicting her
former wishes, then she is obviously not even able to make such a
decision. The mother simply is not competent to make such a choice.
The husband must not allow the abortion in such a case. No
metaphysic is required, there is no reason to kill the child. Unstable
emotional reasons, due to some horrible event, are not reasons at all.
We can't let that rule over the situation.
> 5) Who is moral, the lion, or the lamb?
>
[David Buchanan] They are equally moral, but the lamb is much
more tastey, especially with a little mint jelly. Lions and lambs aren't
morally responsable for the principles of vegetarianism simply because
they can't understand such a thing.
> Real question:
>
> 6) Going into the new millenium, what does the MOQ say we should
> embrace as
> an economic model? Is it unbridled free enterprise, or intellectually
> planned, socially-conscious socialism, or somewhere in-between? What
> is most
> moral?
>
[David Buchanan] I'd say it would be a lot like Robert's Rules.
There should be a principled static situation where a dynamic market can
flourish. Unbridled free enterprize is un-principled and amoral a is a
return to the jungle. That's why so many free-markers are also social
darwinists. MOQ economics insists on the rule of intellectual principles
like democracy and human rights and would constrain business to the
extent required to preserve those principles, but it would not be a
"planned ecomony" because that is too static and thereby thwarts
evolution.
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 - 16:03:16 BST