[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Ham Priday]

Happy New Year, Arlo and Platt --

Yes, I had a good holiday (thank you), and I presume Platt is now ensconced
in his new home on the Outer Banks.  I'm waiting for him to answer my 12/24
post.

You guys are obsessed with a social concept called Morality which is
incidental to philosophical values in the sense that it relates to the
capacity to exercise individual freedom.
Society, according to my dictionary, is "a voluntary association of
individuals for common ends".   It's inevitable that individuals give up
some of their freedom as the price of membership.  This is true whether one
joins a poker club, a football team, a church group, or  participates in the
minimal society of matrimony.  A certain amount of conformity is required
of the individual for sociability.  And I would say that what you and Platt
extol as Morality is generally no more than how we accommodate our behavior
to become sociable.

Now, any social unit has an unwritten law that the offender must be
punished.  In many civilized societies, severe criminal offenses, such as
rape and murder, are punishable by death.  Retribution, for its own sake, is
not the factor here.  Moralistically, the death penalty reflects the high
value society places on human life and freedom.  That is, the justice of a
moral society will not accept behavior that denies or destroys these values.
We put rapists and murderers to death because the lives of the innocent are
more valuable that the life of the criminal.  So, while I do not personally
endorse capital punishment, there is moral justification for it under the
law.

There is also moral justification for killing the enemy on the battlefield
or (in today's war) terrorists who are committed to the destruction of
innocent people.  Indeed, if we are soft on terrorism, we stand to lose the
very freedom that our nation was founded on.

I don't know where the "messiah" excuse came from; it sounds silly to me.
But I'll answer Arlo's question about Hussein (thanks for the spelling
check).

[Arlo]:
> It would be immoral to execute Hussein unless it
> could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his ongoing existence poses
> serious threat to society. Maybe such a case could be made, maybe it
can't.
> But that's where the discussion over execution must be centered.
>
> Yes, it would be very emotionally soothing for many to see Hussein
> executed, but is that reason enough to murder? Yes, it would have been
> quite convenient and easy to euthanize Shiavo, but was that reason alone
to
> murder?

I think that discussion must include the question as to whether this tyrant
can be made redeemable by the laws of society.  To date he has done nothing
but rebuke the court, to say nothing about acknowledging his crimes.  I must
say, I would not be at all unhappy with the execution of this man.  This
would have most certainly been his fate under an international tribunal; he
stands a better chance under a court of his peers.

> Now, let me get back my initial response to Ham's question, that executing
> Hussein would be moral if it could be proven that he represents a serious
> threat to society. An interesting question arises, and that is "which
> society?" Theirs? Ours? Any? And, let's talk a little about what
> constitutes a "threat". Change? Didn't GWB, and the American army,
> represent a serious threat to Iraqi society when he invaded their country?
> Would you say it was moral or immoral for Iraqi citizens to murder
American
> soldiers? Would it be moral or immoral for American citizens to murder a
> foreign army invading our soil? Would it make a difference if that
invading
> army believed they were doing "what was right"?***

Why is taking Hussein's life that much worse than incarcerating him for
life?  Why punish him at all, since it would be only be retribution on the
part of his subjects?  You can take many positions on this miscreant.  It's
not a question of whether he'll ever be a 'messiah'; it's a question of
whether he could ever be human.

I've said before that the killing and destruction of warfare are immoral;
but the consequences of a fanatic jihad destroying Western Civilization is a
thousand times more immoral.  Not to stop them now that we have the
opportunity would be shirking our moral responsibility to this nation and
the fate of our children.  Surely you can see the difference between murder
and self-defense.  If you value your own freedom, you must know what's right
and wrong in this situation.

> Pirsig wrote, "It's not the "nice" guys who bring about real social
change.
> "Nice" guys look nice because they're conforming.
> It's the "bad" guys, who only look nice a hundred years later,
> that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution.

I think that is the self-serving view of a non-conformist rather than a
maxim we should live by.
While radicals and psychopaths sometimes make history, these are certainly
not the individuals I would bet on for improving society.

Regards,
Ham