[MD] Is Quality Value?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Arlo --


If you don't mind, I'm going to skip the messiah proposition because it
doesn't make sense.

> ... you can (1) never, ever predict from what direction DQ will
> derive/emerge/originate/thrust itself upon us, and (2) many time it is
only
> retrospectively that we can see DQ-inspired evolution.

That's correct.  Man does not have access to knowledge of the future, which
frees his decisions from absolute influences and makes his morality
relative.  (You and Platt should review the Freedom section of my on-line
thesis to fully understand the rationale behind the autonomy of man.)

> I'm not sure who is proposing "clemency", unless you define "clemency" as
simply
> "not murdering". No one, lest of all me, has proposed that criminals of
the
> sort you mention be immune from punishment and incarceration. I am only
> suggesting that "murdering" that prisoner is immoral, as was the act of
the
> prisoner (murdering) in the first place.

I think there's more than a semantic distinction between "murder" and
"execution".  The executioner is not a murderer; he is an agent of the state
or society which has passed this sentence on the offender.  The question is:
Does society have a moral right to take the life of a an impenitent or
repeat offender?  My answer is that the law of a particular society codifies
the morals of that society.  Therefore, where the execution of criminals is
empowered by the state, it is moral by definition.

> A culture that values "life" must side with "life",
> whether it is the life of a convicted felon or the life of a
> brain-dead, comatose patient.

A culture that sides with life (and freedom) also has a primary
responsibility to preserve and defend these values, even when it means
killing an enemy soldier, sacrificing its own warriors on the battlefield,
or taking the life of a hard core criminal.  This may be immoral by
philosophical or religious standards, but it would be naive to think that we
could survive as a free nation without taking appropriate action against an
enemy that is morally committed to destroying us.  As for the morality of
euthenasia as applied to "brain-dead" patients, I think this is a matter to
be resolved by the patient's family and attending physician.

> What about the "cultural values of society" that condone the murder of,
say,
> Jews? Or Indians? Here, your first statement contradicts your second in
that
> the first proposes a cultural "norm" test for morality, the second
proposes
> something that is beyond specific cultural norms and more universal
"living in
> peace and harmony with one's neighbors".

I don't know of any free civilized society that condones murder per se.
Where we have seen mass executions, as in the Nazi "extermination" camps and
"ethnic cleansing" campaigns of Africa and the Middle East, they have been
instituted by autocratic tyrants who are not acting on behalf of their
subjects.  There is no contradiction here, since murderers like Hitler and
Hussein do not represent the cultural values of their respective societies.

> You talk about "social justice", but oddly, as I've pointed out to
> Platt, the "most prisoner murdering" nations are (1) China, (2) Iran, (3)
> Vietnam, (4) US, (5) Saudi Arabia and (6) Pakistan. Would you say that is
a
> list of countries concerned with "social justice"?

The concept of social justice, like morality, is relative to the particular
society.  Try to remember that we are not taking in absolute terms here.  I
certainly will concede that taking a human life, even by painless lethal
injection, is idealistically immoral.  I believe that the world community
should work to eliminate this ancient system of meting out justice, just as
it did the pagan "eye for an eye, arm for an arm" tradition.  But we are not
there yet, and it is foolhardy to pretend otherwise.

> [Arlo]
> Would you side with China, then, in saying it is "moral" for China to
execute
> political dissidents? These are prisoners that China feels are a very real
and
> serious danger to its social system.

I cannot speak for China's political paranoia.  But, again, you have singled
out a country which, while it has "Americanized" its marketing economy, is
still essentially a communist state rather than a free society.  If you are
asking if I think the US should invade China and put down its government, my
answer is no.  The institution of a free democracy is most effectively done
by the citizens of the nation in question.  The collapse of the Soviet Union
and recent events in Iraq should have taught us that freedom is not easily
mandated by the state.  I think we should always encourage freedom movements
in captive countries, however.

> Ham, are you familiar with Csikszentmihalyi's concept of "Flow"?

No, I'm not familiar with the Flow concept, but it sounds too much like the
Quality concept to me.  You started out by stating the central premise of
the MOQ "that you can never, ever predict from what direction DQ will thrust
itself upon us."  Why not stick with that?  If you agree with the principle
that humans are incapable of knowing beforehand the full consequences of
their actions, then there is no need to continually look for someone elses's
theory of how to do it.

Essentially yours,
Ham