[MD] Sin Part 1

[Case]

[Platt]
I mean the precarious balance between individual liberty vs. social codes.
Or as I prefer to view it, the tension between the intellectual and social
levels with each vying for dominance. It's Galileo vs. the Roman Catholic
Church or Thoreau vs. Obedience. I do not deny the need for social
restrictions on individual conduct, but firmly believe the the default
position should be individual freedom. Is this anywhere close to what you
mean by freedom and order being in conflict?  

[Case]
In a word, Yes. I agree that the default position should be in favor of
individual freedom. But more on the lines of the King in the Little Prince.
It does no good to tell people not to do something you know full well they
will do any way. The State is the final arbitrator of the use of force. But
there are different kinds of force. I think sometime you fear the slippery
slope. That if is you agree that any compromise between individual and
collective values is permissible that opens the barn door. And yet you would
deny due process... I am left scratching my head.

There simply are areas of society where the collective good outweighs
individual values. In our system it is the role of the legislative bodies to
establish these. When we loose confidence in our institutions this is
tragic.

[Platt]
Yes. That's the way I see it. It's a general guide, of course. Pirsig 
made it clear that the MOQ was not intended to settle specific ethical 
questions. (Sorry, I can't find his actual quote.) But I'm sure you 
remember his discussion in Lila about the doctor morally choosing his 
patient over the germ even though both want to live. What has stuck in 
my mind was his assertion in Lila that free speech, freedom of 
religion, trial by jury, etc. , in other words, individual rights, were 
all intellect vs. society issues. That's one reason why I always 
associate the individual with the intellectual level, the other reason 
being that societies don't think, only individuals do. Do this make 
sense to you?

[Case]
Yes is makes sense but I have to add I am no fan of the whole levels thing.
When it comes to asserting the "moral" superiority of one level over another
I get outright hostile. I prefer to think that what Pirsig is talking about
is separate moral codes that operate at the various levels. But I also note
that at each level while the codes are different many of the same issues are
in play.

[Platt]
Here we simply disagree. You see terrorists as criminals. I see them as 
combatants in a war. In law there's a difference.

[Case]
I say that whatever they are they have status under the law and the law
should be followed. I don't know of any system of laws that allows a person
to be held indefinitely without charges.

[platt]
I meant to say scientific consensus if often wrong. Examples: the 
prevailing view at one time that light traveled through ether and that 
Piltdown Man was the missing link. There's a consensus now that the 
brain creates consciousness although scientists like David Darling,  
Robert Sheldrake and others question the consensus. Similarly, there 
are qualified scientists who question man's impact as the cause of 
global warming, pointing out the natural fluctuations in climate over 
the years from warm to cold to back again. (I recall not many years ago 
the consensus among climatologists was the earth was getting colder.) 
As for the cost of doing nothing, it's the cost of doing something that 
worries me, especially the cost of freedom.

[Case]
Science is aimed at finding truth in the way you want it to. It is always
about making sense of the best evidence and seeking to disprove what we
think we know. It is a blessing that it can be changed. Sure there have been
hoaxes and whacko's but the community of science is far more embarrassed by
them and serious about cleaning up after itself that any other field of
human endeavor I can think of. If you are talking about global climate
change here I do not think there is any serous scientific disagreement about
what is going on. It is a political debate not a scientific one. It would be
just as wrong to characterize the Intelligent Design crowd as offering a
scientific argument against evolution. They do not. They are part of a
religious debate.

But then this could be a debate about something else...