[MD] Biological Quality & Social Conservatism

[Arlo Bensinger]

Hi Keith,

The danger is assuming that Pirsig is giving full license to any and 
all "Puritanical" restrictions on behavior. The ensuing dialogue in 
this forum has, historically, gravitated towards ridiculous 
dichotomies where any deviation from Puritanical status-quoism, with 
a supposed air of MOQ-legitimacy, was assaulted as vilely immoral and 
destructive. I'll be the first to lament many modern social habits 
and norms, but we have to make sure we are not just taking a complete 
return to Victorianism and wrapping it in a false pretense of 
legitimacy. Instead, I have argued, the direction we should be 
concerned with is not a legitimacy-veiled return to Victorianism, but 
a direction that takes us towards the ZMM notion of "arete", 
excellence. Along the way, I am sure, many modern social norms will 
be challenged and altered.

My question is, with whom does the burden of proof (that a particular 
behavior threatens the social order) lay? Can any claim that 
so-and-so will "destroy society" be used to justify legal 
restrictions on behavior? Platt, for example, advanced that notion 
that is "possible" that interracial marriage has a destructive effect 
on society. Do we forbid it? What evidence was ever advanced that gay 
marriage will destroy society? And yet one was argued that "the 
majority should decide" as to its legality, and the other was given a 
weight of being above majority whim. We have to be on firm ground, I 
believe, before we "ban" or legislate away behaviors. And even then 
we have to ask, is the act of "banning" something enough? Consider 
abortion. If we do move to outlaw this procedure, are we ready to 
accept social responsibility for the children? We should be. 
Punishing the mother may appeal to our vindictive nature and need to 
feel superior, but only ends up truly punishing the child. Many, if 
not all, self-professed "social conservatives" are wholeheartedly 
against state-welfare of any kind. So if we value "life", and forbid 
a mother from aborting her pregnancy, what does it say about us 
turning our backs while that child grows up hungry and sick? We can 
lock the mother up in jail, I'm sure there are many who'd cheer that, 
but that still leaves the needs of the child unanswered. My point is 
this, we have a very "say one thing, do another", nearly completely 
hypocritical approach to modern social law.

The whole "public nudity" dialogue (using the word lightly) was 
evidence of this foundational hypocrisy and inconsistency. Are there 
legitimate reasons to forbid certain types of behavior in the 
commons? Sure. Horse and I mentioned this in reply to the "what about 
public fornication?" slippery slope attempt. One could make a strong 
argument that the unwanted transmission of biological fluids is 
grounds to restrict both public fornication and "bottomlessness" in 
areas where health and hygiene issues are compromised. Indeed, this 
is a strong MOQ-stance, in that the unrestricted spread of disease 
and illness brought on by these biological patterns is a reasonable 
enough threat to the existence of a social order as to give 
intellectual weight to the social restriction of these biological 
patterns. We can move beyond insulted sensibilities and towards 
reason. And, to use the initial example, we can "return" to a 
reasoned adherence to what was once a "Puritanical" moral posture, 
losing the "sin" vocabulary. But for other "Puritanical postures" the 
solution may be to just say "get over it".

Arlo