From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Aug 12 2005 - 09:48:18 BST
Hi Mark,
rapid response on this.
> sam 08-11-05:
> My qualms are that you are wanting to bring in a moral criticism of B-
> D acts, as part of the definition, which I'm not sure is viable. Some
> B-D acts are immoral, some are neutral, some are moral. I think we
> need a classification of B-D which doesn't equate them with the
> immoral.
>
> msh 08-11-05:
> Ok, that makes sense. I don't want to suggest that all B-D acts are
> immoral (I didn't think I was), so let's clarify. Would you agree
> that intellectual evaluation of any B-D behavior will reveal whether
> or not the behavior is immoral, that is, if left unchecked, such
> behavior will result in the destruction of society?
Fine.
> msh 08-11-05:
> What's the difference between 'conceding the point' (your language)
> and agreeing 'that, on the evidence so far, the higher quality
> arguments go one way not another'? Because I can't see the
> difference, so I'm wondering what you're disputing.
>
> msh 8-11-05:
> A concession is a point scored. It's like Paul suggested, when I
> kick a goal I want to see the score change. : -) But I can live
> with your wording, above.
Well.... I think those images buy into ego-boosting (or diminishing), which
is social level behaviour - that's why I think it important to respect the
other person's point of view, even if you think it abominable. (Which
doesn't mean you can't take actions against the point of view, only that you
respect Gandhi's point that no human being is beyond reach, and worthy of
respect.)
<snip a lot of agreed stuff>
> msh 08-11-05:
> Fair enough. Can we agree that an incarcerated person is not a
> threat to Society?
Absolutely.
> And, FTR, my use of the word "immediate" above
> follows directly from Pirsig's stand on capital punishment: a
> defenseless human being cannot be a threat, immediate or otherwise.
I think the language is a bit loose there - defenseless doesn't mean
incapable of harming - but I agree the point.
>
> BTW, this might be a good place to see if we can agree that no
> innocent life is any more valuable than any other. I seem to recall,
> from the Understanding Power thread, that you conceded this point,
> though you weren't exactly comfortable with it. I thought that
> concession on your part was rather commendable, so I hope I'm not
> wrong.
I agree with it conceptually, where I'm uncomfortable with it is that, faced
with the choice between saving the life of someone I love and an anonymous
other person (where the value of the life is equal) I will always choose the
life of the person I love. What makes me uncomfortable is that I see no
intellectual level justification for that! (although there are obvious
'human' ones) But I can't imagine ever changing my mind on it.
> msh 08-11-05:
> Sure. I've pasted the passage into my next Lila-24 post. Before we
> move on, however, is it safe to say we are in agreement about the
> meaning of the passage analyzed above? That it in no way authorizes
> Society to kill all perceived threats like germs, unless such threats
> are intellectually verified as real and immediate?
Yup. But there's a lot of weight on the nature of 'intellectual
verification'. Which I'm sure we'll go into.
Cheers
Sam
The actual outlook is very dark, and any serious thought should start from
that fact. (George Orwell)
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 Aug 12 2005 - 09:53:50 BST