From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 14 2003 - 18:30:52 GMT
Jake:Anyway, I think the most interesting aspect that arises from Charles'
> question is, "what does it mean for a drive to occur at the biological
> level that is not morally biologically right?"
DM:Well it seems to some of us that we live in an open and
free world where DQ is possible. This is a very good thing I
believe. And it seems that this openness and freedom is probably
more primordial than patterns/laws/drives etc. Unless something is
a pretty big threat to the SQ achievements of the whole cosmos
or perhaps civilisation itself, then lets support freedom and DQ and
openness. It is quite clear that drives are not determining for people,
that DQ and freedom keeps breaking out, we fear it, and with some
justification, DQ is both creation and destruction. But we hear alot about
certain people threatening civilisation when they are barely any threat at
all.
The biggest threat that seems to scare people is that inequality will not
be maintained and may itself be threatened. The possible is so much
richer than we usually imagine, we both restict ourselves too much and too
little, too much with respect to freedom, too little with respect to
barbarism
and a disgraceful disrespect to the true worth of each individual.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <jbrege@umich.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: MD The MOQ Perspective on Homosexuality
> I'm new to the board so if this is way off let me know:
>
> Charles asked:
>
> What is the MOQ perspective on homosexuality? Would you say a same-sex
> preference lies in the biological level, or the social level? Or perhaps
> some other level? ...To me, it seems that if homosexuality was of the
> biological level, then it's backwards. Because the levels of the MOQ at
all
> times strive to preserve themselves, at least to my understanding;
therefore
> any human sexual preference, being strictly biologically-driven, would
> result (unless measures are taken) in the production of more human life.
> This seems to me to be the primary function of the biological level, to
> sustain and create new life. Obviously there has to be a measure of
biology
> involved in same-sex preference. But can social issues offset the
> biological course? Or, to put it plainly, from the MOQ biological
viewpoint
> is homosexuality considered normal?
>
> In his reply David Buchanan seemed to argue that it was normal as far down
> as the biological level of quality.
> As an example of homosexuality in nature he wrote of Baboons:
>
> They live and graze in pretty large groups and homosexual behavior
> seems to minimize the disruptive effects of competition. Male manatees
have
> orgies together. And Lesbian gulls have been observed raising chicks
> together.
>
> From this evidence he concluded that it was a social level prejudice and
> intellectual level Darwinism that made it appear abnormal:
>
> "It contradicts both social level Prejudice and intellectual
> level Darwinism, so we tend not to notice it."
>
> and
>
> "The selection of which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore
> is made on the basis of social patterns of value."
>
> I think this answer is sensible for the most part, but I think it can be
> tightened up a bit. It does seem the case that a homosexual preference
lies
> at a biological level. It doesn't seem that society or intellectualism
> drives such sexual preferences but does is this enough evidence towards
the
> fact that homosexuality is "biologically" right? I'm not sure.
> The baboon case appealed to seems a much clearer case of social quality
> than biological quality:
>
> "They live and graze in pretty large groups and homosexual behavior
> seems to minimize the disruptive effects of competition."
>
> This explanation clearly benefits the "large groups" or society of animals
> and though this in turn benefits the biological level, it is only through
> the social. It's not the level of biology that ok's homosexuality or says
> that it is morally right as it doesn't directly benefit biology.If
everyone
> were homosexual then the entire species would die out, hardly a goal of
> biology.
>
> The "gut" response that David describes occurs at the biological level.
> It's his biology rejecting a "biologically" low quality situation.
>
> Does this mean that homosexuality is a social construct or an intellectual
> construct? Definitely not. The fact that biology doesn't value
> homosexuality isn't conclusive evidence that homosexual preferences don't
> originate at the biological level. Plenty of things happen at every levels
> that are immoral to some or all levels. I'm not sure what it means, that
> someone feels a drive biologically but such a drive is immoral at the
level
> of biology. I'll think about that but for biology, it definitely seems a
> higher quality event for a chance of procreation than for no such chance.
>
> At the social level, on the other hand homosexuality serves high quality
> purposes as David's arguments from baboons show. At the intellectual level
> it is also morally right. It's reasonable for any consensual homosexual
> activity, and better than ignoring such drives. Since, it's morally right
> at the int. and soc. levels and since these are higher and more moral than
> the biological levels then it is morally right in MoQ.
>
> As for the question to whether homosexuality is "normal," I'm not sure if
> such a question makes sense in the frame of MoQ. Normal seems like a
> descriptive term. Normal is a function of regularity of occurrence, not a
> value or moral question. Even to ask whether an event like homosexuality
> is normal "at a level" doesn't really make sense. Anything that occurs,
> occurs at all levels. I'm not sure, the MoQ has anything to say about
> normalcy. It would be like asking if something is fast or big according to
> MoQ. It's not a question that MoQ pertains to.
>
> Anyway, I think the most interesting aspect that arises from Charles'
> question is, "what does it mean for a drive to occur at the biological
> level that is not morally biologically right?"
>
> sincerely,
> jake
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 Dec 14 2003 - 18:34:20 GMT