[MD] A Place for the Principled Person

[Platt Holden]

Hi David H,

> > PH: 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.
   
> DH: I disagree. Philosophy is about making divisions of the infinitely
> dividable. Metaphysics is the first division, there can be many more
> after that. There are aspects of Rands philosophy which fit beautifully
> IMHO into the MOQ.

When you said "philosophy" I took it to mean an entire philosophy, not 
an "aspect" of a philosophy. I agree that there are "aspects" of many 
philosophies in the MOQ. 

>  DH: I do know Rand's philosophy and she
> claims the opposite to the Victorians that "if it isn't society it is
> good" (because she uses the crude distinction; society vs no-society of
> SOM). She neglects to mention the dangers of letting biology out of the
> bag, and how we can maintain society once it is. Or at least in a way as
> beautiful and metaphysically sound as Pirsig does.

I think Rand's position is that anyone with half a brain will not let 
biological values such as those of criminals run rampant. She calls for 
voluntary associations of rational individuals to meet such threats.

>  DH: Your making the SOM 'Victorian' point that says if we
> follow intellect, society will crumble. This is baloney. This is what
> Richard Rigel said. This is what the Victorians said. As you point out,
> Ayn Rand says the opposite (that if it isn't society it's good). But
> neither of them work. (Solely society or solely intellect).

I agree. Except I don't think I was "making the SOM Victorian point." 
But let it pass.

> DH: I adhere to the MOQ. That
> is, until something better comes along. Any standard of morality that
> allows biological behavior is absolutely immoral according to the MOQ.

Is adulterous sex between consensual partners immoral?

> DH: Morality *is* relative to the culture involved according to the
> MOQ.

OK. There are good cultures and bad cultures. 

> PH: Language is not morality.   

> DH: Everything is morality.

Point taken. There is good language and bad language.

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

>  DH: Yes, I
> think we agree on a lot too. Just I think you make the mistake of using
> SOM at times when the MOQ is much better.

SOM isn't always bad. As a perspective it has done a lot of good along 
with some bad.

Regards,
Platt