MD Social Threats

From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 04:03:49 BST

  • Next message: Arlo Bensinger: "Re: MD: Duty to Oneself Only? Or Others?"

    Going to formulate another new thread here, because I find this question
    to be quite significant.

    I had been talking with Platt about his proclaimation that we are
    justified in using military actions to procure oil, if that oil would be
    denied to us on the free market, because... if I understand his
    argument, "society" has the moral MOQ-based right to protect itself from
    threats.

    I had countered that "And how are you defining "survival"? Continuation
    without alteration? Continuation with alteration? In other words, would
    "society" in America come to a crashing end without oil? Or would it
    just be a huge shift and reorganiztion and trouble and hardship? Does
    that count? You see, if you define "survival" as "continuation without
    alteration", then nearly anything and everything constitutes a "threat"
    to society, doesn't it?"

    We continue...

    [Arlo previously]
    And how are you defining "survival"? Continuation without alteration?
    Continuation with alteration? In other words, would "society" in America
    come to a crashing end without oil? Or would it just be a huge shift and
    reorganiztion and trouble and hardship? Does that count?

    [Platt]
    It depends on the degree of suffering. Would you stand idly by while
    your neighbors freeze to death? I thought you were "concerned" about others.

    [Arlo]
    I'm asking at what point something becomes a valid "threat" to society
    and not just hardship or inconvenience. I'm also asking if the MOQ
    considers a threat to the social level a protection of particular
    nationalistic patterns (a "society" with a small "s"), or if that threat
    has to be against the existence of the social layer itself ("Society"
    with a captial "S").

    With his talk against "murder", Pirsig indicates the "threat" the MOQ is
    concerned with not is not the preservation of particular national
    patterns of a society, but with Society itself. If there was no force to
    prevent (or curtail) murder, then Society, the entirety of the social
    level would collapse. This same level of concern underlied all Pirsig's
    talk on "biological vice". That is, it wasn't immoral because it
    threatened our particular national-social arrangement, it was immoral
    when it threatened the very possibility that society would exist.

    Without "oil" its hard to make the argument that Society would collapse.
    People have lived for thousands of year in social arrangements without
    oil, and would likely do so again if that happens. Do you feel the MOQ
    morally justifies killing people to procure oil so that the habits we
    have don't have to change?

    The same, I feel, is true of "gay marriage". You (Platt) feel it is a
    "threat" to society, and therefore the MOQ supports your disapproval of
    it. But I've asked, is this because you believe that gay marriages will
    destroy the emergent social level? Or is it because particular cultural
    social patterns would have to change?

    Finally, at what level of response does the MOQ justify behavior? Pirsig
    is clear, of course, that biological threats to the existence of the
    social layer are morally met with killing and aggression. But he is also
    clear that once that threat subsides, killing a person is immoral. I
    would take from that that killing someone to procure oil is not moral.
    However, using social funds to ease a transition into alternate fuels
    may be. Using social funds to ensure that a poor person could refinance
    or obtain alternate heating so that no one freezes to death would be
    another.

    I don't relish going through a energy transition. And I'm well aware of
    the hardships such a transition would bring. But I don't feel the MOQ
    justifies murder of people just so that I can avoid these
    inconveniences. Without oil, society would continue. I'd lose my
    Harley, but if people have to die in wars so that I can ride it's a
    no-brainer to me.

    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 Sep 27 2005 - 04:10:48 BST