[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Platt Holden]

Hi David H,

> Yes, your repeating it from a SOM perspective.  Since we are here 
> discussing the MOQ, like I said above, I was simply following the 
> unwritten rule that any 'possibilities' one talked about were related to
> the MOQ unless I say specifically they are not.  If your having
> difficulties understanding this I'll put it another way. When I talk on
> the MD about the MOQ I'm assuming the first division (the metaphysical
> one) has already been taken as it gets tedious to say every line,
> "within the MOQ". "Or according to the MOQ" etc.etc.  Any decision after
> that however, is wide open. 

Your "unwritten rule" is news to me. There are philosophies and there 
is the MOQ. It helps the reader at all times to say what you are 
talking about.

> I'll go on.  The most important point (and the one that SOM misses) is
> that there is no problem with an open philosophical field within the MOQ
> as it is immoral for any biological rebellion to occur.

I don't understand what you mean by "an open philosophical field within 
the MOQ" Within the MOQ there is only one philosophy -the MOQ.

> Moreover
> philosophies are taken on board, or not, depending on their quality.  
> Who's not to like this?

Everybody like's quality. But there are many different ideas about what 
a quality philosophy is. Here, for example, Ayn Rand's philosophy is 
considered by many to be low quality. 

> Both the SOM  intellectuals like Ayn Rand and the Victorians confuse  
> biological and  intellectual quality like you have. 

 PH:
> How have Rand, I and  the Victorians confused biological and 
> intellectual quality? 

 DH:
> Because that is what SOM does.  This is what I'm trying, and taking a
> long time in each post to make this as clear as possible for you, to do.
> The only two directions to go against society (according to the MOQ) is
> towards either biological quality or intellectual quality.  One of them
> is absolutely immoral.  The other (when biology is under wraps) is good.
>  SOM confuses them (because it never made this distinction) and thinks
> that *if it isn't society it's not good.*

If you knew Rand's philosophy you would know she doesn't believe in "if 
it isn't society it's not good." In fact, quite the opposite. I also do 
not look to society for approval, especially that part of society where 
liberals hang out. :-) 

> DH (continues):
> >> Within SOM the only morals (because it neglects morals thoroughly)
> >> are either current social mores(with small remnants of Victorian
> >> charm) or what could only be considered social chaos.   SOM confuses
> >> the two directions of the MOQ moral hierarchy.  It thinks that if it
> >> isn't society then it's not good because this is what the Victorians
> >> echo to us(who confused biological and intellectual quality)."
> >>     
> > PH:
> > When have I said or inferred that if it (what ever it is) isn't
> > society (whatever that means) it isn't good?
> >   
> David quotes PH:
> 
> "Because then anything goes, depending on what philosophy one chooses to
> follow. Result. social chaos."

How do you interpret that to mean "if it isn't society it isn't good?" 
  
> >> DH:Naturally, if people adhere to a Metaphysics of Quality then
> >> social chaos is not the result because the only thing which can
> >> damage society is by following biological drives when society is more
> >> important.

Who do you know "adheres to the MOQ?" To repeat: if there are many
philosophies in a society, all  with different standards of morality, and all are
allowed to flourish under an overall philosophy of "anything goes," then 
there is likely to be social chaos. 
    
> > PH:You are aware, I'm sure, that some philosophies encourage
> > biological behavior, like radical Islam.  
> >   
> DH:Doing destructive biological behavior is immoral according to the
> MOQ.  That is what I wrote above.

It's immoral by many philosophical standards, not just the MOQ. 
 
> >>  I
> >> agree, if people have ranging philosophies and act in different ways
> >> then on the social level this may appear like chaos, but on the
> >> intellectual level it is not because in the MOQ each of these
> >> philosophies can be ranked according to their quality."
> >>     
> > PH:
> > You must be talking about an ideal world where everyone has read,
> > understands and follows the MOQ. Until then, the world is going to
> > stay chaotic such as it is today, especially since the educational
> > system is teaching the young that morality is relative to the culture
> > involved  and diversity is the hip new religion.

> DH:
> Yeah, that's what we're doing here.  Talking about ideas, yes?  

Talking and behaving are quite different activities.

> Moreover, to a degree the educational system is right.   Morality is
> relative to the culture involved.

Not according to the MOQ which, by your unwritten rule, we must be 
talking about unless otherwise indicated.

>You cannot make a statement that is
> not culturally influenced.  The language you use for starters comes from
> your culture.

Language is not morality.

> But ultimately it is not. We each have separate ideas
> rather than combined (social/intellectual)cultural ones and morality is
> not 'just' within a culture, it is universal.  This is what the MOQ
> says. :-)

Exactly. That's what I said. That's why those who preach and teach   
relative morality are wrong. That's why we have social chaos in the 
world today.

It takes some work interpreting what each of us is saying to the other, 
but happily we seem to agree on some things.  

Platt