Re: MD Intentions and Morality

From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis (marquis@nccn.net)
Date: Tue Jul 05 2005 - 19:48:05 BST

  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "RE: MD The intellectual mess still not cleared up."

    MSH wrote:
    ___________________

    Evil is banal but not invisible. With astute external observation,
    and lots of reflection inward, and, most important, the unfettered
    flow of information between the island universes we've made of
    ourselves, our participation in evil can be minimized and maybe
    eliminated altogether. I think this will have to do, until the
    estranging sea we've set between us subsides and the illusion of
    proud individuality disappears, once and for all.
    __________________

    OK, Mark, how do you talk about intentionality without moral agency and
    moral agents without some idea of a person? Are you suggesting we kill ego
    entirely or just put it in its place?

    Intentions value actions (intentions are the motivation for action), and
    much of what results from this interplay of static patterns once intention
    is actualized as action was not foreseen by the agent. Some of this can be
    alleviated by critical thinking / careful consideration beforehand. IOW,
    value understanding and value patience as opposed to value ego and value
    passion. Form some clear intellectual patterns of value concerning what is
    Quality in a given situation prior to acting. Focusing on action alone is
    slipping again into SOM materialism, recognizing that only the physical deed
    is 'real'.

    Regardless, unless one is omnipotent, what some patterns will value given
    intentional input cannot be foreseen. What could be foreseen, or, what a
    'prudent' adult is expected to foresee, we can hold a person accountable
    for. What this person (sorry, I'm sticking with the individual as the
    smallest pattern of agency) cannot be held accountable for is what did occur
    due to intention but an average prudent person would not have foreseen.

    Accountability is after the fact and deals with actions. Responsibility
    (response ability) is prior to the action and deals with intention. It
    assumes agency. We need to deal with both ends. Certain actins can be an
    immediate threat to social stability. However, this is always a band-aid
    approach.

    A higher quality approach is the training of appropriate use of the agent's
    responsibility (ie, character, that which motivates) and in an MOQ sense
    this would have to deal with an education in Quality; to perceive, intend,
    and act, with Quality in mind. This would, of course, entail critical
    thinking, so of course instances of unintended low quality consequences
    would drop.

    Learn what Quality is and apply it to your life, education of your young
    ones, and how you deal with others.

    Check out psychological egoism which claims that no act or intention can
    ever be anything but 'selfish'. That's one perspective. Certainly one who
    is motivated by social quality (the desire for fame) to do a certain act is
    not selfless.

    Live well,
    Steve

    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 : Tue Jul 05 2005 - 20:20:41 BST