From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 22:27:11 GMT
Hi Arlo, Dan,
P:
> > First, I don't look to Europe or South America for my moral standards.
A:
> 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.
Whether harm done or not, I have no evidence either way.
> > 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.
In deciding social morals you invoke intellect regularly. There must be
some premises on which you rely to determine your decisions regarding
those morals. Is the MOQ your one and only guide?
>
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.
Not according to the MOQ. But what other moral scheme might you appeal
to besides the MOQ? I presume you considered interracial marriages moral
long before you read anything by Pirsig.
> The intellectuals Pirsig condemned, rightly, were those that sided with
> biological patterns over social pattens completely.
I don't think "completely" is quite accurate.
> 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.
That's the rub. Which static social patterns should be preserved 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.
Agree.
> 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.
Without freedom to do business, the pursuit of happiness is indeed
straightjacketed.
> "Individual freedom" is more than merely a marketplace phenomenon.
Yes. It's also a political phenomenon.But a free marketplace is a
necessary condition of individual freedom.
> How else? Do you believe all law should be determined soley by majority
> decisions?
Yes, provided the minority is not prevented from becoming the majority and
that individual rights specifically stated in a democratic nation's
constitution are not violated.
> > 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?
Absolutely :-) However, the majority rules.
> > 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.
On what basis?
> When a referendum prohibits a gay couple from receiving the same state
> benefits as a heterosexual couple, it is immoral.
On what basis?
> The fat content alone is out of control.
Would you vote to pass a law that dictated how much fat content there
should be in every type of food?
> 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.
No, but I doubt if they believe they are serving the public unhealthy
food. Any food may be deemed unhealthy if over-indulged.
> 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.
Well, I wonder why they allowed it in the first place. Probably because
they rightly concluded that a hamburger now and then never harmed anybody.
> > 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.
Agree, but I think he's referring to hard drugs. In the common vernacular
cigarettes and booze not considered drugs that destabilize the community.
Platt
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 - 22:25:27 GMT