[MD] Reason, Tradition

[Platt Holden]

Mike, Matt

> Mike said:
> In Mill's words: "The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he
> is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which
> merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over
> himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
> 
> So in Mill's liberalism, the society is allowed to evaluate conduct
> which directly affects society, whereas the individual is allowed to
> evaluate conduct which directly affects only himself.

I like this distinction between social morality and personal morality, 
also known as "character." The personal morality attributes of hard 
work, personal responsibility, self-discipline, individual initiative, 
craftsmanship, commitment to excellence, thrift, delayed gratification, 
honor of achievement, optimism, life long pursuit of knowledge and the 
like seem today to lack the moral weight afforded to the social 
morality of diversity, affirmative action, feminism, multiculturism, 
environmentalism, political correctness and the like -- to the long 
term detriment of a free society.

A case could be made that the distinction between these two types of 
morality -- personal and social -- is more in line with an evolutionary 
morality than Pirsig's distinction between social and intellectual. 
After all, what is so moral about such intellectual patterns as 
Newton's Law of Gravity, Plato's Republic or Freud's Introduction to 
Psychoanalysis?  But many attributes of personal morality are to be 
found in each of these giants of human accomplishment. Thoughts 
(intellectual patterns) are not always moral. But human individuals, 
possessing the characteristics of personal morality outlined above and  
often contrarians to social moral conformity, have been the shakers and 
movers of evolutionary progress. IMO they deserve their own level at 
the top.

Platt