[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Case]

[Arlo]
I think we have a foundational disagreement here. Anything a society does to
perpetuate itself is moral? Certainly that can't be what you are suggesting?
I though the whole elevation of "Intellect" over society was to counter such
a notion?

[Case]
Ok, if you are going to make me stretch to disagree with you I might as well
pull a muscle while I am at it. Let me be clear. I do not practice, advocate
nor am I all that well informed on cannibalism or cannibal societies but
within the context of such a society, it would seem that the practitioners
do not consider what they do immoral. Those who eat their enemies are
absorbing their enemy's power and making it their own. Or those that eat
their own dead may be providing a kind of immortality for their loved ones.

The point is that within the context of the society there is a logic. The
members of such a society are not sitting around at night thinking up new
and more disgusting ways to be immoral. They are only viewed as immoral from
outside the society. We can sit outside of cannibal culture and tsk, tsk,
all we want but unless we forcibly invade the village and end the practice
it just doesn't matter. We did something like this in WWII and supposedly we
are doing something like it today. Europeans did it to the whole new world
and Africa and India and Australia and every other immoral, pagan,
defenseless culture they could find.

What would we say if some more morally righteous and physically powerful
people decided to forcibly impose cannibalism on us? Or maybe some alien
society could come along and made us stop killing each other and dumping
toxins into the environment. Can you say Klaatu berrata nicto? Or the more
up to date version: "All your base are belong to us!"

Even if you want to look to higher powers than society as a source of
morality what you are going to wind up with sooner or later is priests and
you know damn well the priests will wind up making the peasant eat
unleavened bread until the temple is built and the sacrifices can begin.

Even trusting all this morality business to the "intellectual" level is no
guarantee. Generally speaking they can't agree on much of anything and by
the time they get done arguing and having their friends for diner, either
the priest will have time to stage a come back or the aliens will have
turned us into a slag heap.


[Arlo]
The question is not whether or not a majority will impose social pressue on
a minority to behave a certain way (I'm not sure if its possible NOT to have
this happen), but whether or not that majority has the right to use force to
prevent non-violent behavior that does not conform. Remember that the "veil"
issue orginated when Platt remarked it was a victory for Intellect to use
FORBID BY LAW people from wearing veils. We've drifted from this somewhat,
but that's also the key to Rebecca's and Gav's comments, and also what Horse
suggests.
Namely, that people while social pressure will always be a part of group
behavior, we should not use "the law" to forbid behavior on the basis that
it "offends", or is "aesthetically unappealing" or whatever slippery-slope
du jour Platt offers ("Rape", by the way, is the latest. I guess he felt
"public fornication" was not ridiculous enough).

[Case]
Exactly, but this is a discussion among members of western culture about
what WE "ought" to be doing. In that context it is my view that we should
live and let live and not run around forcing our sense of decency on others
either at home or abroad. When reason and social pressure fail to get the
job done maybe it is time to take a closer look at what we were trying to do
in the first place.

Among the many things that disturb me about our times is our flagrant
disregard for our children. It seems to me that an enlightened society would
be totally focused on the upbringing of the next generation not setting up
an economic system:

That forces both parents into the work place. 
That exposes children to endless violence: visually, verbally and
vicariously. 
That glorifies personal gratification over responsibility to loved ones.
That encourages the dispersion of extended families. 
That mortgages the future for short term gain and neglects public investment
in human capital, physical infrastructure and intellectual capital in the
form of pure research. 
That promotes the consumption of not renewable resources without regard for
replacing them. 
That sees itself as the master rather then the steward of nature.

That may be way off topic but to my way of thinking, sexual morality and
religious intolerance are pretty far down on the list of our sins.