Re: MD quality religion (Christianity)

From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 07:20:37 BST

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MD Religion of the future."

    Dear Jon,

    You wrote 24 May 2004 09:39:58 -0400:
    'based on the above guidelines [it is irrational to motivate action with
    unrealistic ends ... It is immoral to enforce ends that are not shared by
    those influenced ], America never would have fought for its independence
    from England'.

    You're right. Perceived unrealism doesn't automatically make action immoral.
    As I wrote:
    'Lack of information, certainty and ... politically motivated disagreement
    about intended and unintended effects complicate matters even more.'
    Did the majority of the American colonists not share (i.e. disagree) with
    the END of independence? You are only writing about their opinion about the
    MEANS. ('Only one third supported the war.')

    A seemingly unrealistic end being realized after all doesn't automatically
    make it moral either. That depends on side-effects and alternatives. It
    would have been more moral if the USA had become independent in a largely
    non-violent way, like India (if we forget about the very violent separation
    of India and Pakistan that followed). By the standards of the time American
    independence didn't have too much negative side-effects as far as I know and
    non-violent struggle may not have been an option yet. So yes, I would also
    assess it as a moral step forward on hindsight.

    Given lack of information, uncertainty of effects and politically motivated
    disagreement we have to steer by rules of thumb and post-rational
    visions/callings. (I consider post-rational visions/callings as dim
    perceptions at the 4th level of 5th level patterns of value that are
    starting to form.) I wouldn't call the visions of George Bush post-rational,
    though. They rather seem to cater to the pre-rational and irrational parts
    of his constituency (as well as to the rational, but immoral self-interest
    of the rich and powerful).

    As rules of thumb I would suggest that freedom struggle that is 'owned' by
    those it is meant for tends to be more moral than liberation from outside
    and that violence increases the risk of negative side-effects.

    With friendly greetings,

    Wim

    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 May 25 2004 - 07:44:51 BST