Re: MD MOQ and The Moral Society

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jul 15 2005 - 16:29:03 BST

  • Next message: Matt Kundert: "Re: MD Theism, Non-Theism, Anti-Theism, Nihilism"

    msh 7-12-05:
    It's not my task (or right) to single-handedly bring about the Moral
    Society, even if I could. My position is that a more moral society
    will evolve naturally if we work to remove the physical and
    psychological impediments blocking the vast majority of people from
    realizing their full human potential.

    To this end, I've argued for specific actions, including:
    prohibiting wealth from unduly influencing domestic and foreign
    policy; prohibiting wealth (and power) from dominating the
    propagation of information; and prohibiting the privatization of
    life- essential products and services.

    So far, you've failed to demonstrate how such actions are
    antithetical to the moral underpinnings of the Metaphysics of
    Quality.

    platt 7-13-05:
    Prohibit, prohibit, prohibit. The MOQ moral underpinning
    antithetical to such actions -- in a nutshell:

    "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of realty, the
    source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the
    moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no
    pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is
    freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any
    pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the
    ongoing free force of life." (Lila, 9)

    msh 7-14-05:
    I think it's safe to say that no one other than you interprets this
    passage to mean that society has no moral right to prohibit certain
    behavior among its citizens.

    platt 7-15-05:
    Only you wouldn't recognize MOQ's advocacy of freedom.

    msh 7-15-05:
    You've offered the above Pirsig quote as the "moral underpinning"
    of your belief that government should not regulate the behavior of
    its citizens, even if it's been shown that certain behavior is
    potentially destructive of society. Starting with the quote you've
    offered, please provide a line of argument and evidence that leads
    to your conclusion.

    platt 7-12-05:
    Would you be in favor of a law that increased taxes on those who
    refused to give blood on a regular basis in order to replenish the
    blood supply that saves lives? If not, why not?

    msh 7-12-05:
    Yes, if those who refused cannot prove that giving blood put their
    health at risk, and if the process of collecting and distributing
    blood was conducted by legitimate non-profit agencies. People who
    profit from the existence of community services should be required
    to support those services, one way or another.

    platt 7-13-05:
    Thanks, you made my point.

    msh 7-14-05:
    Uh, what point?

    platt 7-15-05:
    That you'll justify any government intrusion into private lives to
    "save lives" including blood-letting. Next: harvesting human organs.

    msh 7-15-05:
    In your hypothetical situation, no one is forced to give blood.
    Healthy people who don't want to give blood during a shortage may
    contribute through paying an increased tax. Another option is to
    give tax rebates to blood-donors. Anyway, I fail to see how my quick
    response to a hypothetical question has made your point that I'll
    "justify any government intrusion into private lives to 'save lives'
    including blood-letting."

    Please provide a line of reasoning showing how I've proved your
    point.

    Or, better still, let's get back to the core of this thread. I
    posted the following, but got no response from you:

    msh 7-12-05:
    Your slippery slope has proved to be non-existent. We already
    collect taxes for police, fire and EMT services, and thus are
    "forcing others by law" to save lives. Why should a tax-based system
    for providing life-saving medical services be regarded differently?

    In fact, since most police work is about protecting property, it
    could be argued that a tax-based health system that will positively
    affect millions of lives is an even higher moral priority than most
    police services.

    What is your MOQ-based moral justification for tax-based police and
    fire services? And why does it not apply to life-saving medical
    services?

    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    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 Jul 15 2005 - 17:44:36 BST