From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 17:35:24 BST
Hi Platt,
I've renamed this one too. Got a lot of things going on under the same thread
headers. Just trying to make it easier.
[Arlo previously]
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.
[Platt]
The MOQ values each and every life? I don't know where you get that from.
After all, the Giant regularly devours life to serve its purposes and in some
cases the MOQ says it should.
[Arlo]
The MOQ views the individual as the emergent source of social and intellectual
evolution. It opposes capital punishment because it is the murder of an
intellect, that is a higher order level than social patterns. In the same way,
a society based on MOQ values will strive to protect each and every potential
source of evolution.
The MOQ based society would realize that letting "Jennifer" die of a treatable
diasese simply because she lacked the capital means to pay for treatment, would
be like letting a potential Einstein die to preserve static social patterns of
wealth.
In the cases where the MOQ supports the right to take a life, it is in
protecting social patterns from biological forces of destruction. But even the
"criminal", once captured and incarcerated, is no longer a threat, and so his
life must be preserved.
[Platt]
I think the MOQ would rather have a majority vote against life saving
services than have a static government program set in stone by a small
elite minority who think they know best, including you and me. :-)
[Arlo]
Again, in a MOQ society, I doubt people would vote away life-saving treatment.
We are not talking about imposing MOQ morality on the current
SOM-Wealth-Is-King culture of the U.S. We are talking about what a society
undergirded by MOQ values would be like. I'm arguing that the valuation of life
(as potential evolutionary sources) would supercede the valuation of wealth (as
is obviously a major concern here).
Thus, just as a MOQ society would not restrict access to information, and would
provide community support for public lands, it would provide life-saving
services for all its citizens, regardless of their capital accumulations.
[Arlo previously]
Do you feel the MOQ would support a majority voting NOT to provide life-saving
dialysis to someone incapable of paying the capital cost?
[Platt]
Yes. The MOQ believes in democracy except when intellectual rights, which have
nothing to do with one's ability to pay, are threatened.
[Arlo]
You feel that "public lands" (which we had agreed are MOQ supported) are an
"intellectual right", but "life-saving services" are not? Can you explain that?
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 : Sat Jul 30 2005 - 23:58:01 BST