[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Arlo previously]
Can you give me a single citation from Lila that indicates that something can be
"immoral" for any other reason?

[Platt]
Sure. It's immoral for SOM intellect (a higher pattern) to dominate 
society because SOM intellect has no provision for morals. Result: social 
disaster where intellectuals consider it enlightened to entertain 
criminals at cocktail parties. 

[Arlo]
Not according to Lila. He repeatedly says that is indeed moral for Intellect to
dominate society, regardless of the defect. Pirsig says, "An evolutionary
morality says it is moral for intellect to do so, but it also contains a
warning: Just as a society that weakens its people's physical health endangers
its own stability, so does an intellectual pattern that weakens and destroys
the health of its social base also endanger its own stability."

Moral, but with a warning. Not "immoral", as you would have it. Can you find me
one citation where Pirsig claims that it is immoral for intellect to dominate
society?

[Arlo previously]
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] 
Huh?

[Arlo]
This gets to your "absolute morals" issue. My question is, if you could
demonstrate that a particular biological behavior threatened American society,
and show thus that within the MOQ it is moral to suppress this behavior, does
that mean it is moral to suppress that same behavior in another culture that is
NOT threatened by the behavior?

[Arlo previously]
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]
Sad that you are apparently unaware that crime rates in many socialist  
European countries  are on the upswing and now match or surpass American  crime
rates. They are reaping the whirlwind of their multiculturist welfare policies.
As for "understanding the MOQ," you seem to set yourself 
up as the sole arbiter of "understanding the MOQ." A bit arrogant wouldn't 
you say? 

[Arlo]
Nice dodge. Your claim is that capital punishment is required to prevent the
destuction of society. And yet you offer no evidence of this, you just claim it
to be so. I would think when you are talking about taking a human life, you'd
be a little more throrough in demostrating exactly how his existence as an
incarcerated prisoner threatens society.

There is no historical evidence that countries using capital punishment have
appreciably lower crime rates. Indeed, America continues to have the highest in
the western world, despite being the only country in the west to continue to
murder prisoners. In fact, as I pointed out, our moral neighbors in state
murder are Iran and Saudi Arabia.

You "conservatives" talk a lot about a culture of life, and yet it only seems
you back it when it is politically expedient to do so. We sided on the Shiavo
case, because, like you then, I side always on the side of life. Guess when its
a prisoner and not a comatose patient "life" doesn't account for much, eh?

Pirsig's warning is quite clear. A "serious threat" must be proven before the
taking of a life is justifiable. You can't just "say its a threat". You have to
demonstrate it, prove it, show in undeniable terms how that person's continued
existence represents a serious threat to society. Then, and only then, does the
MOQ support his being killed.

In your comments to Ham you fall victim to what you decry. Those reasons Ham
mentioned for state murder, despite being firmly believed to be necessary to
preserve the social fabric, you deny, yet so firmly believe without evidence
that your perceived threat is "real" and so murder is justifiable.

All your talk about the "individual" and the "brujo" is really hollow, Platt.

Arlo