<moq_discuss@moq.org>
sender: <mwittler@yahoo.com> id <mS/11ugMG-
0008dXS@mail.airmail.net>;
Sun, 5 Dec 99 12:26:04 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <006901bf3f4e$75588e00$fa1388cf@airmail.net>
From: "Mary" <mwittler@yahoo.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Subject: MD MORALITY QUESTIONS
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 12:27:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Mary comes out of hiding to respond to Roger's moral questions.
I think the MOQ gives us a system of rules to apply to assess any
particular situation. In no particular order I think they are:
INTERDEPENDENCE
1) All 4 levels are interdependent. Anything developed in level X that
endangers level Y is immoral (and this holds in either direction).
BACKWARD COMPATABILITY
2) Rule 1 holds true in EITHER direction on the static scale. Lower
levels receive lower valuation only because they are assumed to be so
static that there is little a higher level can do to harm them. This is
not necessarily true.
FORWARD UNCERTAINTY
3) It may be impossible to predict an outcome for a higher level about
which you have no comprehension. For example, how much moral certitude
can we apply to intellectual level decisions when we do not have a firm
understanding of what comes after? *****
1) How does the MOQ judge the morality of the Union in the American
Civil War? Highly. War, a social level activity, operated in defense of
an intellectual level pattern (freedom/equality).
2) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Congress in the Impeachment
Process of President Clinton? Poorly. Clinton's actions were biological
level ones occurring between two consenting adults. At no time was the
state endangered by his activity. The House of Representatives violated
the MOQ hierarchy by attempting to destroy the continuity of a popular
Presidency by imposing constricting Victorian social level values. Note
that you did not ask about the morality of Clinton's choosing to lie to
the public about the situation.
3) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Truman's decision to drop
nuclear bombs on Japan? Social level war was used (as in 1) to defend
intellectual level morals. Since there was no possibility of 2 bombs
destroying the biosphere (level 2) or destroying the intellectual level
(level 4), there's no reason why level 3 should not have used them. The
argument that it is never moral to kill has no precedent in the social
level. Assume for a moment that an armed intruder entered Robert
Pirsig's house threatening to shoot him. Now, Robert Pirsig could be
said to be the one person on Earth who has a complete understanding of
all 4 levels. Would it be more moral for him to turn the other cheek
and be killed or make every attempt at his disposal to kill the
intruder?
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? The most moral
course of action would be for you to make every attempt to both
understand her emotional (social & biological level) state and help her
to intellectually understand it herself before any action is taken.
5) Who is moral, the lion, or the lamb?
Both equally.
6) Going into the new millennium, 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? Neither. Both models are equally
flawed. Neither model takes into account the true cost of its actions
at the biological level. Pursuit of either will result in degradation
of our biological base - thus violating both the rules of
interdependence and backward compatibility. Social level economics
(free enterprise) and intellectual level economics (Socialism) do not
provide compelling motivation for sustainability. Without a motivation
for sustainability we are stuck with models that promote either greed or
altruism with no motivation for looking at the big picture. Greed will
no doubt predominate. I predict that we will be incapable of living
sustainably on the planet until level 5 is reached.
~Mary
------- End of forwarded message -------
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