[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt]
What Pirsig really says is that cultural relativism gave SOM intellect "
a ferocious instrument for dominance of intellect over society. Intellect could
now pass judgment on all forms of social custom, including Victorian custom,
but society could no longer pass judgment on intellect. That put intellect
clearly in the driver's seat." (Lila, 11)

[Arlo]
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against here. Perhaps, since you
believe the MOQ has nothing to say about relativity, where and when does Pirsig
says that anything is immoral outside of when a lower level threatens a higher
level. Can you give me a single citation from Lila that indicates that
something can be "immoral" for any other reason?

Or, tell me how according to the MOQ, a biological pattern that is threatening
in one society (and hence immoral) would also be immoral in another society
where that same biological pattern is not a threat?

[Platt]
They were immoral because they were misused by SOM intellect to undercut 
social patterns of value, thereby loosening restrictions on biological 
forces. 

[Arlo]
And until and unless those biological forces threaten the existence of social
patterns, where and how does the MOQ claim they are immoral?

[Arlo previouisly]
You'd be hard pressed to come up with an explanation for how a prisoner in
a secure facility for life could constitute a "threat" to the existence of
a society. Take the recent execution in California. Did you support it?

[Platt]
Absolutely.

[Arlo]
Sad.

[Arlo previously]
Do you feel his existence in that prison constituted a "serious threat" to the
"established social structure"? If he would not have been put to death, would
American society have been destroyed?

[Platt] 
If America goes soft on murderers, rapists and pedophiles the society can 
indeed by destroyed. The recidivism rate among criminals is atrocious.  

[Arlo]
Canada has no capital punishment, nor does Germany, Iceland, Sweden or Denmark,
nor does England. Those societies have not been "destroyed". Can you cite me
any evidence (historical or otherwise) that murdering incarcerated prisoners
has any appreciable effect on crime? Why is it that all the countries I've just
cited have lower per capita murder rates than the U.S.? By your reasoning,
countries that do not practice institutional murder of their prisoners should
have much higher crime rates.

>From Wikipedia, though, I found the list of the top ten countries in the number
of prisoners they murder. You'll find America in good company...

1 	China 	3,400+ 	260
2 	Iran 	159+ 	230
3 	Vietnam 	64+ 	77
4 	United States 	59 	20
5 	Saudi Arabia 	33+ 	130
6 	Pakistan 	15+ 	9
7 	Kuwait 	9+ 	400
8 	Bangladesh 	7+ 	5
9 	Singapore 	6+ 	140
10 	Yemen 	6+ 	30
11 	Egypt 	6+ 	8
12 	Belarus 	5+ 	48

Let's see... we are right in between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

This prisoner was incarcerated and no longer a threat to society. Murdering him
was immoral. It didn't "protect society", it gave conservatives a moment of
feel-good retribution. So sad that someone who professes an understanding of
the MOQ could support such immorality.

[Platt]
Show me where Pirsig says that. How about patterns of value that threaten 
the existence of their own level? Like terrorism? Or are you now ready to 
admit that terrorism is a biological pattern?

[Arlo]
Terrorism is a biological tool, as are armies, used in the conflict between
social patterns of value. Historically, "terrorism" was used by a group that
could not wage actual war against its enemy. Or, when a foreign government
wanted its military actions handled covertly, and sponsors a local group to
commit terrorist acts. And societies have a right to defend themselves from
military invasion or aggression.

[Platt]
You mean it's immoral of me to eliminate crabgrass from my lawn? Show me 
where Pirsig says that.

[Arlo]
This is an interesting question. Consider that of vegetarianism Pirsig said "An
evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say it's scientifically immoral
for everyone because animals are at a higher level of evolution, that is, more
Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and vegetables... It would add, also, that
this moral principle holds only where there is an abundance of grains and
fruits and vegetables. It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows in
a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor of a
lower organism."

So, I suppse, I'd say that while its immoral for you to kill crabgrass that does
not threaten your life, that "the moral force of this injunction is not so
great". Now, if you killed the crabgrass to grow vegetables to eat, then the
MOQ would likely find this completely moral.

Arlo