From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Jul 26 2005 - 05:49:13 BST
Hi Platt,
[Arlo previously]
I'd disagree only in that I think some services should never be denied an
individual because a majority votes against it. EMT serives I would propose is
one such item.
[Platt]
I presume there are viable communities in the world without EMT services.
I don't see EMT services as any sort of "right." A right that imposes on
obligation on another is not a right, it's a wish. "Rights" in America refer to
limitations on government, as in the "Bill of Rights."
[Arlo]
Just as there are presumably "viable" communities that are without common lands
and community supported access to information. What I'm saying is a society
based on MOQ morality would provide life-saving services to its citizens. I
take this directly from Pirsig's talk on capital punishment, and how the MOQ
values each and every life.
Therefore, I do not think that it is MOQ practice to allow a majority to vote
this away from any citizen. Do you disagree? Do you feel the MOQ would allow a
majority to "vote away" life-saving services from any citizen?
MSH has stated that there are life-saving services that are not specifically EMT
related. Dialysis (not sure if I spelled that right) for example. Do you feel
the MOQ would support a majority voting NOT to provide life-saving dialysis to
someone incapable of paying the capital cost?
[Arlo previously]
But this does get back to "who" decides what is "life saving" and what is "life
enhancing". If its not a "community vote", it has to be something/someone. The
Supreme Court?
[Platt]
The people should decide. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the U.S.
Constitution, not to decide such issues as the difference between life saving
and life enhancing.
[Arlo]
Well, we're not talking about the way things are, but the way they would be
under MOQ morality. And again, I don't think the MOQ supports a majority voting
to deny a poor person dialysis. How do you find the MOQ supports this? (If the
majority votes to provide or not breast enhancement surgery, I think is inline
with MOQ freedom.)
[Arlo]
But, what happens should the majority in your community vote against an
ambulence service? I'd say that violates MOQ morality of preserving the life of
the individual. So, while I agree with a vote for life-enhancing services, I
think that services that are life-saving should not be up to a vote.
[Platt]
You are suggesting a inalienable "right to life-saving services" See above for
my response as to the nature of "rights."
[Arlo]
I am suggesting it is a moral imperative within the MOQ to provide life-saving
services. That these are not subject to social pattern control, but must be
provided even if it threatens to destroy the society itself.
[Platt]
Pirsig also had something to say about rights. "It says that what is meant by
"human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs. -society, the moral
right of intellect to be free of social control." (Lila, 24) Government
programs of life-saving services are a form of social control.
[Arlo]
I'm not sure I follow your logic on that last statement. First, the MOQ supports
the need for "social control". Second, "life saving services" do not threaten
"intellect". Indeed, they support it! How is providing life saving services
violating the "moral right of the intellect to be free of social control"?
Again, life saving services supports the intellectual level by maximizing the
chances of evolution.
[Platt]
I think we can agree, Arlo, that there's a conflict in the MOQ between freedom
and static patterns. "What's good in life can't be defined by society or
intellect or biology. What's good is freedom from domination by any static
pattern, but that freedom doesn't have to be obtained by destruction of the
patterns themselves. (Lila, 24)
Whereas you, MSH and perhaps others tend to default to static patterns to
create an MOQ moral society, I tend to default to freedom. There are good
arguments both ways, as Pirsig acknowledges when he says, "But an imprisoned
criminal is no longer a threat to society and it becomes ARGUABLY immoral to
kill him because he is still capable of thought." (LC, Note 136.)
[Arlo]
Well, I wouldn't say MSH and I default to static patterns. Its just that we
recognize (and maybe I should not speak for Mark) that static patterns are a
unavoidable necessity, and should be rethought along MOQ lines. This is to
maximize freedom for the majority, not restrict it. So I do take some umbrage
at that.
However, I am in agreement that it is a balancing act. Social patterns can
easily become oppresive and restrive of freedom. The key is finding that "sweet
spot" :-). And much of it looks towards a time in the future when the MOQ is
the foundation of morals.
[Platt]
So there's a real balancing act going on that makes for a fascinating
discussion, but impossible to conclude with total agreement, as I'm sure we
both know anyway. Still, we have made some progress and hope we'll continue
with the effort.
[Arlo]
As do I. :-)
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 : Tue Jul 26 2005 - 06:32:23 BST