[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
I know you don't want to leave anybody out of your radical egalitarianism, 
but just as some things are better than others, some people are more moral 
than others, i.e., they have more value. Just as there is a difference 
between drinking Dom Perignon out of a fine crystal goblet or a jelly 
glass, there's a difference between an  Einstein and Jack the Ripper.

[Arlo]
I didn't realize I was proposing "radical egalitarianism" in my defense of 
Pirsig's notion that the value of the individual lies in their 
potentiality, with regards to DQ, and not in success on the social level. 
Nor did I realize I was advancing the notion that there is no difference 
between Einstein and Jack the Ripper.

My point is that the inherent value of the individual is, at the core, 
equal for all people (no one possesses superior potentiality). On the 
different MOQ levels, of course, people actualize their potential in 
various degrees. Some people possess high social quality, but very low 
intellectual quality. Others may actualize high intellectual quality and 
low social quality. Some an average mix. But their innate value, in my 
opinion, is equal. And, as I've said in recent posts to Ham, the 
actualization of potential (whether its social, intellectual or even 
biological) has much more to do with it than "skill". Paris Hilton, again, 
has high social quality, but does she possess that because of skill? 
Einstein was able to realize his intellectual ability because he was able 
to attend schools, and be surrounded by that which stimulated his mind. Had 
Einstein been born in other conditions, it is not a given that he would 
have actualized his potential to the same degree. Or, had Einstein died as 
an infant because his mother could not afford medicine, we would all be the 
poorer. No?

Therefore, even though Pirsig does advocate the morality of society to stem 
off biological threats, he does not propose that the criminal's life has 
"inferior value", just that protecting SOCIETY in that moment has greater 
value than ANY individual's life. Once the threat is contained, society has 
no moral right to execute the criminal because he is "inferior" to other 
individuals. Indeed, as Pirsig noted, just the opposite. In this case, you 
could say that it is not that the criminal is at that moment "inferior to 
other humans", but "inferior to society".

Furthermore, the actuality of value at the highest level (the contrarian) 
is, as he indicates, something nearly always seen in hindsight. How would 
you propose, for example, we determine "who" is a Brujo today? Remember 
that he was a drunk, vagrant, peeping-tom.

And as for you Dom Perignon example, just curious, do you think you could 
tell the difference if you were blindfolded and given several trials?

Arlo