[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Platt Holden]

> [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?

No problem. Regardez: "Today we are living in an intellectual and 
technological paradise and a moral and social nightmare because the 
intellectual level of evolution, in its struggle to become free of the 
social level, has ignored the social level's role in keeping the 
biological level under control. Intellectuals have failed to understand 
the ocean of biological quality that is constantly being suppressed by 
social order."  Wouldn't you say a "moral nightmare" is tantamount to 
being "immoral?" I certainly would..

> [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?

All societies I know about are threatened to one degree or another by 
biological forces such as "might makes right".

[clip]

> [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,

If you say so, Arlo. How about proof? Incidentally, I forgot. Do you 
consider abortion moral? As for murderers, rapists, pedophiles and other 
dangerous characters, your sympathy for them is touching. You may not 
consider them threats to society, but I'm glad that most people do. Maybe 
if it was your daughter, God forbid, who suffered at the hands of one of 
these assailants, you wouldn't be so soft on crime and criminals  I just 
hope you don't invite them to your parties like Pirsig's intellectuals 
did. But, since you're a liberal, if you did, I'd  understand. :-).     

Platt