From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 18:21:32 GMT
Hi Platt/Dan,
In this case,
> we agree on the premise that there should be social restrictions on
> biological patterns, to one degree or another.
Yes. The MOQ makes it clear that society is perfectably justified in restricting
threatening biological patterns.
> First, I don't look to Europe or South America for my moral standards.
Nor do I. And I don't look at "America" or any other nation-state either. But
reason tells me to look for examples. In the case of beer and wine, many other
cultures have looser restrictions than the US, and no harm is done. Certainly,
in more extreme cultural comparisons, the cultural context must be included
(such as Samoan sex patters, as Pirsig mentions). But Germany and America are
very culturually similar, similar enough I believe to warrant the consideration
that loosened restrictions do not threaten social patterns.
> Second, you have yet to show a well thought out social morality based on
> intellect other than the MOQ which, as we all know, is only known by a
> few, each of whom seems to have a different interpretation when applied to
> specific cases.
I'm not sure what it is you are asking for. I'm only dealing with particulars
here, not overhauling the social morality based on intellect in toto. I doubt I
have the knowledge and/or wisdom to even think I was capable.
What I am merely doing, is saying that the MOQ absolutley justifies social
restrictions on biological patterns, Pirsig makes that clear. But those social
patterns should be based on Intellect, and not on majority decision or fear.
For example, if a majority voted on a referendum for banning interracial
marriages, would that make it a moral social pattern according to the MOQ? No.
The intellectuals Pirsig condemned, rightly, were those that sided with
biological patterns over social pattens completely. Their goal, if I can take
Pirsig's observation as accurate (and I think I do), was to destroy all social
patterns. I do not think that's what I, or any of us, are proposing.
But again, at that same time, social patterns are not always moral just because
the restrict biological patterns (think chocolate). Nor are they moral because
of majority support.
They are moral only when they preserve static social patterns, necessary for the
evolution of the Intellectual, from destruction.
Finally, you dichotomize Victorian social morality as all
> bad, not recognizing (as Pirsig did) many of the positive aspects of that
> era,
Well, I am using the term somewhat derrogatorily because Pirsig also says
clearly that the Victorians placed the social level above everything else.
Society was God, if I remember his words on it. When I've used the term in this
way, it was to knock the "social over intellectual" aspect of Victorianism. As
with Pirsig, I've never proposed that all restrictions were "bad", merely that
a return to "social dominance" on the hierarchy is immoral.
particularly the value Victorians placed on the values of capitalism,
> individual freedom and responsibility vs. the socialist ideal.
What you mean to say is not "individual freedom" (as we are indeed talking about
all the restrictions placed on the individual during this time), but
"individual freedom to conduct business". In short, in the pursuit of wealth,
freedom "reigned", in the pursuit of happiness, freedom was very much
straightjacketed.
"Individual freedom" is more than merely a marketplace phenomenon.
> Your fear of conservatives is showing--fear, fear, fear.
Yes, in actuality, I am afraid.
> > I respond:
> > I am pleased with your personal beliefs on this, Platt, but a little
> > dismayed that a supporter of the MOQ would justify "morality" on a
> > "majority decision". Doesn't that place the social level above the
> > Intellectual?
>
> Well, how else do you make law? Do you want a cadre of self-described
> intellectuals determining morality for society? Oh, I forgot. That's what
socialists want.
How else? Do you believe all law should be determined soley by majority
decisions?
> What I meant to convey was that I personally am in favor of legalizing
> drugs so long as my tax dollars aren't used to correct the damage done by
self-inflicted drug use.
Do you feel the same way about your tax dollars being used to correct the damage
done by self-inflicted tobacco or alcohol use?
> Perhaps the difference is leftist look to the nonelected judges on courts
> to impose their will while conservatives believe in referendums and
> elections.
And the result is the same. When the restriction is immoral, how it got to be a
restriction is unimportant.
For a judge to order that the St. Paddy's day parade commission HAD to allow
marchers to march with homosexual banners, it was immoral.
When a referendum prohibits a gay couple from receiving the same state benefits
as a heterosexual couple, it is immoral.
Who disputes the McDs
> > food is unhealthy?
>
> McDonalds does, among others. Any food eaten day after day for breakfast
> lunch and dinner would prove unhealthy.
??? The fat content alone is out of control. And when does McDs (other than for
its salads) advertise that its food is "healthy"? It advertises that its hip,
cool, quick, convenient, tasty, etc. But "healthy"? I've never seen an ad where
even McDs makes this claim.
Do not misunderstand, I am not making the argument to ban McDs, but only that if
a hospital decides that it doesn't want the image of serving unhealthy food,
then I can see how they would come to that decision. The same way I'd support a
hospital that did not want a tavern opened on the premises.
> Regarding drugs, Pirsig wrote:
>
> "Things like sex and booze and drugs and- tobacco have a high biological
> quality, that is, they feel good, but are harmful for social reasons. They
> take all your money. They break up your family. They threaten the
> stability of the community." (Lila, 13)
>
> So I guess the MOQ view is different than yours.
No. I've said repeatedly that social restrictions are certainly necessary, only
that these restrictions can't be "willy nilly", nor should they be overly
restrictive. I doubt Pirsig would is advocating a banning of smoking and a
return to prohibition.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 18:35:32 GMT