Sorry I'm late, but I was on a two day vacation away from my computer.
In a message dated 12/4/99 10:15:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com writes:
> 1) How does the MOQ judge the morality of the Union in the American Civil
> War?
I agree that the social/intellectual reasoning about war is not clear, but it
was not moral for the Union to allow slavery to continue as an intellectual
problem by allowing the South to use a social solution (creating a separate
state) to avoid the moral intellectual problem (if slavery is moral). Of
course you could argue the creation of a separate state is an intellectual
action, but in my opinion, it is not (and I'll leave it at that).
Cain - "Am I my brother's keeper?"
The moral answer is yes.
> 2) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Congress in the Impeachment
> Process
> of President Clinton?
To me the morality of Congress was immoral in that the primary reason for the
impeachment was social and not intellectual. The perjury charge was not the
primary reason for the impeachment, but the Republican Party's social agenda.
This was most evident in the Repulican's drawn out process of evidence
presentation. It was clearly a political point to use the social instrument
(the Constitution) to further the social process (the impeachment). The
purpose did not really have to do with the intellectual perjury charge. I
suppose you could say that it was an intellectual exercise to use the
Constitution in this way, but in my opinion the MOQ doesn't work in this way.
>
> 3) How does the MOQ judge the morality of Truman's decision to drop
nuclear
> bombs on Japan?
I have always argree to the morality of Truman's action and you can look at
my several posts on the matter. However, I would maybe point out to the
people who harbor idea that it broke international laws and the US laws. Do
those people that agree that they are then saying that it was more moral to
kill a million soldiers in order to force a surrender than violate the
civilian casualty laws. It seems to me that it would be. What does the MOQ
say to this? Death to a million vs. death to tens of thousands?
Pragmatically speaking...I would say that Truman made a decision based on a
very nationalistic MOQ view. The other arguments (it was to scare Russia)
are really revisionist history.
>
Sorry, but most of the importatant points of your hypotheticals have already
been said, but they both seem a bit contrived. My moral compass says what it
says...
xcto
All is not good.
All is value
> ***************************
> I don't know if these are the best questions. I was concerned about
> hypotheticals. It seems hypothetical static concepts are much more
solvable
>
> than real life, because it is framing of the concepts that is the part of
> the
> process most prone to oversimplification. But I threw some in anyways.
>
> Similarly the historical questions suffer from the fact that we have had
> years to see how quality has played out. But again, lets see how the MOQ
> does.
>
> To restate my case, I think that the MOQ is a very effective dynamic
process
>
> with which to approach these issues. However, it cannot give static best
> answers to these questions because there is not a static permanent best
> moral
> solution. (Even of the historical in my estimation, though I am keeping
an
> open mind).
>
> To borrow from Platt, I endorse the following statement:
>
> "The main message I take away from your posts is that moral
> decisions should be made PROVISIONALLY -- a code of conduct
> that science has built into its philosophy which is one of the
> reasons for its success. Pirsig calls New York the most dynamic
> place in the world because New Yorks never been committed to
> any preservation of static patterns. Its always ready to change.
>
> Hold on to whats good, but be ready to change to something
> better. That concept appeals to me as a good moral stance to
> take, and your posts have helped to clarify it for me."
>
> The MOQ provides a process, not a solution.
>
> I predict that we will have trouble landing on any best moral solution to
> any
> of these dilemmas. However, I agree that THE PROCESS will lead us toward
> morality. Like a compass, the process can lead us North, but in the real
> world, we never actually get there.
>
> David, Platt, jc, or any others still want to build a case the other way?
> If
> so, lets try to reach an agreement on some or all of the above. The
process
> should be healthy and rewarding. I sure have my thoughts on each Q.
>
> Roger
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