[MD] Platt's Individual Level

[MarshaV]

At 07:07 PM 6/19/2006, you wrote:
>Quoting MarshaV <marshalz at charter.net>:
> > And what if this serial killer's/philosophy professor's metaphysics
> > included exterminating all blue-eyed blonds?  By what level would you
> > call him morally dominated?

Platt
>By definition a metaphysics is a description of reality. 
>Exterminating blonds is not
>a metaphysics but a proposal of murder which is biological. The 
>killer you describe
>is obviously dominated by biological values. Let him write his 
>metaphysics behind
>bars where his biological dominance is held in check.
>
>I'm beginning to wonder, "What's the point of your questions?"

I've been following this thread and I was asking some questions.  I 
just don't get the 'Individual Level' label.  Maybe it's because the 
'Intellectual Level' label is already very static in my mind, or 
maybe it's because I don't understand your reinterpretation.  Seems 
to me the individual kills and the individual develops (thinks) a bad 
metaphysics which includes killing.  And then there's the 
'betterment' aspect that doesn't seem to ring true.  Are you saying 
the Intellectual Level must be a higher morality, if only from the 
individuals pov?

I've gotten very comfortable with the idea that there is in reality 
no individual and there is no 'good & evil'.  Both concepts seem to 
be social interpretations from attachment.  Thinking about this may 
be an intellectual endeavor, but are the process and conclusions 
necessarily a higher morality?

I was asking questions to see if I could find an answer or at least a 
better question.  If you can help clarify my confusion, I'd be grateful.

Marsha



Marsha