[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Rebecca --

Your comments are so perceptive and well articulated, I'd like to see
someone nominate you as the MD Moderator.

Since you tuned in late on my discussion with Platt, you should be advised
that we're both "traditionalists" who believe in such old-fashioned virtues
as individualism, social morality, and patriotism for one's country.  It is
for these reasons that I find his concepts of Freedom and Morality oddly out
of tune with my own.  I suspect that the MOQ thesis has influenced this
difference, though he would probably argue that I have exacerbated the
problems by introducing a "foreign" philosophy to the discussion.  Perhaps
there's a bit of each, in which case you're welcome to referee our debate.

> Firstly, I think the term "consensus" might be replaced with "convention."
> Mostly because convention has less feel that it has been actively
> considered.  Consensus, on the other hand, could be construed to mean >
that people have actively agreed on a certain attitude or practice.

I agree that "convention" suggests a less active, more "traditional"
understanding of morality, implying that a moral code is a fixed set of
mores.  This is why I prefer "consensus".  It is hoped that a free and
democratic society can keep current on moral and ethical issues, and will
voice their opinions publicly, as well as through the ballot box, so as to
maintain a level of justice and fairness that is appropriate for the
changing conditions.  This may be wishful thinking on my part; but I think
it is what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they designed a
representative government.

The history of civilization is hardly a static process.  In the last two
centuries, world-wide communication, mass production, global marketing,
digital technology, and medical advancements have changed man's reality in
ways that our founders could not have foreseen.  As you say, "society is by
large part defined by the institutions (formal and informal) that it
consists of."

You also point out that slavery is no longer a problem, although lynching
may still be, and racial discrimination certainly is.  Sometimes, however,
the social consensus tends to overcompensate for what it sees as injustice.
I think such policies as forced integration of public institutions,
affirmative action, and the egalitarian notion of political correctness are
narrow-minded solutions that have created new problems in the attempt to
resolve old ones.  And I agree with Platt that a free society calls for
responsible citizens who are sufficiently informed to make judgments that
will serve the best interests of its constituents.

I think you've captured the spirit of my idea of morality eloquently in this
statements:

> Social morality IS imposed on us by consensus, and
> Aristotle's argument was that the better your institutions
> are then the better your society will be.
> While institutions don't change quickly, they
> do change and the moral sentiments that were embedded
> as convention in those systems are set adrift.
>
> I believe that freedom can cause beauty but it can
> also degrade into destruction and horror - the
> difference between the degenerate and the saviour...
>
> Secondly, what exactly is the problem of aiming at
> perfection?  Is perfection not the highest form of
> Quality?  Is that not what we should always aim at,
> even while knowing that we may never attain it?
> As has been pointed out on another thread,
>  just because you might never achieve your
>  goal does not mean that you shouldn't try.

Thank you, Rebecca.  You've made my point.

Regards of the season,
Ham