[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[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.

[Arlo]
Hopefully you went with the stapedius.

[Case]
within the context of such a society, it would seem that the practitioners do
not consider what they do immoral.

[Arlo]
No, certainly not. Yet I think (or I had hoped) the MOQ gives us some framework
to say what things may be immoral (or moral) regardless (or irrespective) of
society. For example, I would think the MOQ gives us the ability to condemn
slavery "anyplace, anywhere, anytime" (for you Euro-music fans, there's a Nena
reference for ya). Consider the discussion now going on about "amoral
relativism" in the Neopragmatism thread.

But let me be clear. Just because we could say "slavery is immoral, and
therefore a culture without slavery is superior in that regard than a culture
using slaves" does not mean every little cultural difference is a matter of
absolute morality or immorality. "Veiling" is one of those issues specifically
because "veiling" is itself irrelevant. In fact, you could drop the word "veil"
and simply say "adorning the body". If there is a moral tangent that we can
compare cross-culturally it is the use of FORCE to conceal (or disrobe) a
woman's body based on either sexual immaturity or property-rights. And, beyond
that, there is a moral issue (which we are now discussing) on when a society is
morally able to employ FORCE to ensure conformity, and when (of if) it is not.
(And just to restate for clarity, by FORCE I do not mean "social pressure" but
law backed by guns and jail.)

And, also, as you are not afraid to do, that same above-social analysis must be
brought to bear on our own culture. Armchair apologists love to sit around and
talk about how every other culture is inferior to our own, and guffaw with
arrogant haughtiness, but there is immorality in our own land, and we can take
a lesson or two from other cultures on how we can improve. Which is why
diversity and exposure to other cultures is such a good thing (among other
reasons). The list of criticism you wield below is, as you say, much more
imporant that a debate over whether or not laws forcing women to wear shirts
should be repealed and replaced by whatever normative social pressure exists in
any given local context. And, as recently came up with Ron, looking to other
cultures (as Pirsig did to both the Native Americans and Zen/Tao aspects of
pre-western Asia) can help us see not only "where" but "how" we should move
forward.

[Case]
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!"

[Arlo]
I'd say, "|2ox0r \|/ouЯ b0x0Я2! |-|3j, 1 $pE@|{ L337. 1'|\/| 0[\]E 0|= +|-|3
6o0|) GUj$. Go 93+ pL477, |-|3's +|-|3 En3|\/|y!"

;-)

[Case]
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.

[Arlo]
Well said. Which is why in the discussion on topless, its apparent that "we were
trying to do" (regarding laws forcing the concealment or disrobing of women) is
based on either immature prudery or archaic property-rights over our women
style thinking for the former, and fear and arrogant haughtiness in the case of
the latter. Neither amounts to any "Intellectual" victory.

[Case]
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.

[Arlo]
As I said, of course these are more aggregious moral transgressions than whether
or not a women should have to wear a bikini top lest she offend some prudish
man, or show her husband's assets to others. And we've talked about the at
length in the past. All of these can be addressed by examing what Pirsig really
said about the Indians and/or Zen culture. Conversely, all of these maladies
can be traced to the influx of mercantilist discourse following the Industrial
revolution, which can still be seen in the tensions between Victorian and
Indian-Western worldviews today (as described in LILA).