[MD] Sin Part 1

[Platt Holden]

> [Case]
> 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.

I would deny the intellectual level right of due process to anyone who
is dedicated to destroying that right, such as an Islamic terrorist.

> 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.

Rather I would look to the Supreme Court to uphold individual rights 
against the collective. Legislators are tempted to pander to the 
"collective good" (as they define it) to win votes -- a weakness of  
democracy.

> [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.

Can you explain why you get "outright hostile" at the moral superiority 
of one level over another? Seems to me you would agree to the moral
superiority of intellectual science over social level religion. 

> [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.

Those dedicated to forcing their anti-intellectual religious laws on us 
forfeit all status under our intellectual level laws. 
 
> [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.

I think there is serious scientific disagreement. The global cooling 
consensus of a few years back indicates the science is far from 
settled.

> 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.

The intelligent design crowd relies heavily on the laws of probability 
which, while not strictly scientific, are not religious.