[MD] Morality. Pin the tail on an invisible donkey.

[Joseph Bromley]

Hello all.

Morality is not black or white.
Morality can be heavy.
Morality can be light.
Morality can protect.
Morality can attack.
Morality can make strong.
Morality can make weak.

I can not help but see quality, in good and evil, in good and bad, in right 
and wrong. If quality is the source of all how can it be otherwise?

I went in hard on Platt for one reason, I smelt staic social valuation of 
what is right and wrong. The intellect is above the social level and if it 
has any intergrity it must pose the question, on what ground is this 
perspective of right and wrong based on? The Great Pirsig said that the 
intellect must know which side it is on and it must fight for that side 
using whatever means it has at its disposal.
I choose the intellects side, under the following conditions, that our 
technological does not come at the cost of our physiology. It would appear 
that as technology advances mans health and vitality decreases. I will not 
aid any scenario where intellect is given free reign over and enimic, sick 
and feeble body, I would rather mankind where destroyed! A pyramid stands or 
falls according to its foundations. That does not make me an advocate of the 
Law of the jungle as highest morality, far from it, I would see State become 
the replacement for God, as the weight behind morality. Social morality has 
no power or guidance when it looses its central concept. Few in the west 
believe in God any more and thus social morality has been weakened. (I will 
address "God is Dead" in a later post.)

I doubt few if any will agree with some of the examples I am going to use to 
show how MOQ (I prefer Metephysics of Morality (MOM) as it changes the 
emphasis of MOQ. And if I have learnt one thing from reading the dates in 
Lila's child and the level of discussion on this site in regards the use of 
MOQ it is that MOQ would not be reachable by the masses, thus a more 
simplified system seems in order. I picture MOM being used in the mass media 
to start getting the ball rolling.)

Case Study Number 1.

An un-named person, who is unable to move, talk or feed themselves, and 
suffers from fits is it right to such a person alive?

Law of Nature: (Inorganic Level)
All the elements that are in this person are part of a greater system of 
life on earth. This persons mass was acquired from earth and will return to 
the earth when her life force which holds it all together disapates. Nothing 
is lost.

Verdict: It is neither moral nor immoral for this person to carry on living.

Law of the Jungle: (Biological Level)
See is biologicaly deceased, in the jungle she would have died long ago.

Verdict: It is wrong for her to be in existence.

The Law: (Social Level)
Human life is precious and should be preserved at all costs. The legal 
system she lives under says that is is wrong for her life to be ended if it 
can be kept going.

Verdict: It is moral to keep her alive.

"Immoralism": (Intellectual Level)

Historical perspective: No laws are eternal, in the ancient world it would 
have been against the law for this condition to be perpetuated.
An eye to the future: As the law has changed and will change over the course 
of history, it is quite concievable that a future state will have a law 
which states that it is not right to maintain such a low quality of life. As 
such the social levels verdict is a temperal one.

Economic Advocate: It costs a great deal, in time, expense and resources to 
keep such a person living who will contribute nothing to society. As such it 
weakens the social level as a whole.

Common sense Advocate: The money would be better spent helping a person who 
was one step away from perfect health then spent on someone who will never 
have health.

A question of value: This person has nothing to offer biologicaly, socialy 
or intellectualy.

Verdict: it is Immoral for this person to continue to exist.

Summary. It is moral as things stand in the west today for such an existence 
to be supported, it is law, if intellect goes against the law then it weakns 
society and thus its own position. Intellect needs to champion a change in 
the law on the above grounds. So that a time will come when the law is based 
on intellectual valuations and not archiac religious superstitions.

Case Two. The case of Tony Martin.

Tony Martin lived on his own, he had been burgled on previous occassions and 
had become concerned that the police could not guarentee his saftey so he 
perchased a gun. Two burglars broke into his house, Tony Martin crept down 
the stairs and opened fire in the dark, killing one burglar and injuring the 
ring leader. Tony martin was originaly jailed for murder, which was later 
reduced to man slaughter. The injured party tried to sue for lose of 
earnings. (Sorry do not know the outcome of that case.)

Law of Nature:

Nothing has been lost, only the form of the matter has changed.

Verdict: Abstains.


Law of the Jungle:

The strongest beast rules the jungle, in this case it was Tony Martin with 
his gun.

Verdict: Tony Martin was morally correct in his actions.


The Law:

It is against the law to steal, it is against the law to kill.

Verdict: Both parties are morally incorrect.


Immoralism:

As the burglers entered into the law of the jungle first the weight of 
responcibility lays with them.

Tony Martin would have been charged with a minor offence. In order to 
discourage others from purchasing firearms and using them, but not to an 
extent where it puts people off from meeting infrindgements of the law by 
winning in the jungle, thus allowing scope for natural justice.

The criminal who sued for lose of earnings should never have been listened 
to in the first place. It is an example of ritual law in the service of 
biological greed on the part of the criminal and the lawyer. As such it is 
not justice.

Verdict: Justice in the end was done, in regards to Tony Martin.


The big problem is who do you destroy greed intellectually? If it is 
biological then it would have to be controled be policemen and soldiers, but 
the law controls them, and the justice systems of the west are riddled with 
it too as are the governments. Governments make the laws which the lawyers 
practise, democratic governments respond to sustained public oppiniion, 
therefore the hearts and minds of the masses need persuading over to the 
side of the intellect. That would mean entering the dirty world of public 
media.

First steps: we need to agree on a course of action, that we all agree on 
and get out there and make a noise. If we sing together we have a greater 
chance of having an effect. If we go out there with different objectives 
then we are not only fighting the above mentioned problems amongst others 
but each other which is counter productive.

Regards Joseph Bromley.

_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now! 
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/