[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo]
Again, this is about historical patterns. Can you show me any instance, 
historically, where blind obedience to a social structure has never 
degenerated into immoral behavior?

[Ben]
Someone who blindly follows laws that prohibit murder and theft--be they
American, Polish or Ancient Roman laws--will not degenerate into immoral
behavior.

[Arlo]
Here you are implying "immoral" is simply biological over social. What about
social over intellectual? Are you saying that by "following Roman laws (for
example) one will never do anything immoral"? In this case, "morality" is
defined by "obedience to the state".

[Ben]
Mr. T's advice "Don't do drugs, stay in school and drink milk", if followed
blindly, will not lead to immorality.

[Arlo]
Again, Ben, you seem to be talking about one person and one "order". I am
talking about historical time and the historically inevitability of the "state"
(social patterns) violating intellectual qualities for its own end. Sure,
"blindy follow the rule 'do not kill'" is an okay statement, but its underlying
premise is this... "the state, laws, etc, will tell you what is "moral" and
what is "not"". That one rule may be benevolent, but what happens when a person
is so accustomed to "obeying orders" because the "state tells me by listening
to it I am moral" is confronted by a malevolent order?

[Ben]
Blindly following professors at Princeton University won't lead to immoral
behavior.

[Arlo]
Oh, I don't know. I'm sure Platt would disagree.

[Ben]
This is where I see the conflict between social and biological patterns, which I
mentioned in my first post.  Every human has biological instincts that are
checked by social instincts.  The desire to rape is biological and not that
uncommon.  It's overcome by social telling you that if you do it, you'll go to
jail and sometimes but not always further attacked by intellectual patterns
telling you it's wrong.

[Arlo]
Again, the "conflict" here is when social patterns violate intellectual quality.
I am well aware the MOQ provides for the morality of the social order to curb
biological quality. 

[Ben]
A soldier who wants to rape peasant girls but doesn't because he's blindly
following orders not to is a threat to no one so long as he continues to
blindly follow that doctrine.

[Arlo]
He will be a threat one day if he does not learn to devalue rape for its
immorality. And, if he simply is taught to be "moral" by "obeying the state",
how is he going to learn when to place intellectual quality over the needs of
the state? 

[Ben]
I apologize for the typo in my post.  I would not recommed American soldiers
obey immoral orders, but I don't think Platt would either.  It's not sufficient
to say that Platt has historically supported American action; therefore he
always will.  I'm pretty sure this isn't his stance, though I'll let him speak
for himself.

[Arlo]
I'm detecting a bit of problem with the term "blind obedience". And this may
account for our disagreement. You keep mentioning specific "laws", and
short-term time frames, so let me say this, I am not challenging the need for
citizens, or soldiers, to be obedient to laws. Yes, we should all be obedient
to the "do not rape" laws (although I sincerely HOPE most people don't because
they find it morally repugnant, not because society tells them not to). By
"blind obedience" I mean the absolute, uncritical acceptance of what everything
we are told do as moral just because the state (or social pattern) tells us.

[Ben]
It doesn't like blind obedience to me.  It looks like bad thinking.  Blind
obedience doesn't call for questioning your commander or your country.  It
doesn't call for reading books or considering empirical evidence.  The Germans
were not all blindly obedient; they were just stupid, unwise and  wrong. 
Fixing the thinking fixes the problem.  Ending blind obedience doesn't, unless
you replace it with good thinking.

[Arlo]
Its "bad thinking", I'd say, because they let the social pattern unequivocally
determine what is moral, and in the cases you mention because it places social
patterns above intellectual patterns. But I just can't get a handle on what you
are saying, Ben. Humor my ineptitude here, and let me ask some clarifying
questions.

Should soldiers obey orders they find immoral?
If no, how can they do this and still be "blindly obedient"?

Has any nation ever existed that has NOT issued an immoral order?

If you want people to "blindly" obey the law "do not rape", what happens when/if
the law changes? How will they know to disobey? Or should they continue being
"blindly obedient"?

You appear to be suggesting that people "blindly obey" laws/orders YOU believe
are "moral", but suddenly become disobedient if ordered to do something you
also find immoral. On what basis should they make that determination? Why
should they, in other words, "blindly obey" an order "not to rape", but
suddenly possess the critical awareness to say "no" when ordered "TO rape"?