From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 16 2003 - 01:23:54 GMT
Hey Platt,
I wonder if it is a coincidence that the word "Quality" is in the word
"EQuality"....???
PLATT
> As previously explained, it's in society's interest to sanction marriage
> between a man and a woman. To use an imperfect analogy, it is in
> society's interest to reward intellectual achievement. If in the name of
> equality you gave everyone an A regardless of achievement, you would
> not serve that interest.
RICK
This is a multiple choice problem. Please complete the sentence with
the choice that you feel best completes the analogy....
IF, in the name of equality, you gave everyone an 'A' regardless of
achievement, THEN students would no longer achieve, BECAUSE students are
only motivated to achieve by the desire to get 'A's. Similarly, IF, in the
name of equality, you let homosexual couples marry, THEN heterosexuals would
no longer marry, BECAUSE _______________.
A) Heterosexuals are only motivated to marry by laws preventing homosexual
marriage.
B) Heterosexuals would no longer value the benefits of marriage if
homosexuals could marry and get those same benefits.
C) Heterosexuals would instead choose to be homosexual if they knew they
could marry legally.
PLATT
> ....Are you suggesting sterility tests in addition to blood tests as a
> prerequisite for attaining a marriage license?
RICK
Actually, I thought you were implying this. Using the logic you presented
above, if the reward of marriage is given to couples that can't procreate
then it will become a less attractive reward to couples that can procreate
(right?). So why should it matter what the reason is that the couple can't
procreate (sterility or homosexuality)? If they can't procreate, then by
your theory letting them marry would endanger the incentive system. Right?
RICK (from last time)
> > What about overpopulated societies? Should they reverse the law so
as
> > to discourage procreation?
PLATT
> No. Populations wax and wane naturally for many reasons other than
> marriage laws.
RICK
Then why does the converse (using marriage as an incentive system to
procreation) make sense to you?
PLATT
> Maybe you're right. But how many married homosexuals will adopt
> children? I don't know the statistics.
RICK
I don't either. But we know that at least some such couples exist, so why
bother denying them?
PLATT
> Pirsig has made it clear (in Lila's Child) that he did not intend the MOQ
to
> provide definitive answers to all moral issues but rather provide a new,
> framework for considering them based on reason rather than social
> convention.
RICK
It is strange to see you (Platt the Absolutist) take argumentative refuge in
the notion that the MoQ doesn't provide definite answers.
PLATT
Within this framework, I take the position of preserving what
> I see as a necessary social pattern. You take the position of individual
> freedom and equality.
RICK
Actually, I take the position that there is no conflict between allowing
gays to marry and preserving the kinds of patterns I think you're worried
about. I think heterosexuals *want* to marry, I think they *want* to have
children and *want* to raise and protect those children. I think
heterosexuals (obviously) raised and protected their children before there
were such things as societies or marriages and that they would continue to
do so whether or not homosexuals could marry or whether there was such a
thing as "marriage" at all. I think that whole pattern is biological and
needs no social encouragement for support.
PLATT
Both positions are supported by the MOQ with
> yours probably having the moral edge because in the MOQ moral
> hierarchy it's an intellectual pattern. One must be careful, however, not
> to let an intellectual pattern undermine a necessary social pattern.
RICK
One must also be careful of value rigidity, which chokes off dynamic good.
For a glimpse of the dynamic good your view risks choking off, take a look
at Davor's recent post in this thread.
PLATT
> Would you also agree that our discussion has provided an example of
> how to use the MOQ to intelligently grapple with moral issues? I think
> we have. At the very least, I respect your position and see how, within
> the MOQ framework, you could be right.
RICK
Well, I think we have barely brushed over the tip of an iceberg of a
moral issue. But also I think we've provided a nice little example of how we
can employ the language of the MoQ to explore the views of others and
develop our own. Thanks for sharing your view with me.
takecare,
rick
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 : Sun Mar 16 2003 - 01:23:38 GMT