[MD] Down the road of mediocrity

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Arlo previously]
> Pirsig is saying  the activity of fighting social repression of 
> intellect is "more moral" than the activity of fighting social 
> repression of biology.
> 
> [Platt]
> I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he's saying a 
> Galileo is more moral than a common criminal.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Your intent to use criminality obscures this issue, Platt. Why say "a 
> Galileo"? Let me ask you this (dropping this history and the 
> criminality for now). Name someone who is "more moral" than you are. 
> Do you think that makes their intrinsic value as a human being 
> "better" than yours?

A soldier defending this country from terrorists.  Yes.

> Do you feel, based on your wealth, that you are of higher value than 
> an unemployed miner in West Virginia. You may argue you have a higher 
> current social value, but does this alone determine your worth as a person?

No. 
 
> Is Galileo more moral than Sam Walton?

No. 

> Is James Gleick a better 
> person than Sam Walton?

No.

> [Platt]
> The moral standing of individuals is further explained as Pirsig writes...
> 
> [Arlo]
> There is nothing in that passage about the moral standing of 
> individuals. It is a statement of morality in society preserving 
> itself from destructive biological patterns. How you use this to prop 
> up some "MOQ-Aristocracy" is beyond me.

Read what Pirsig says about brigands and Indians who dash babies' brains out.

> [Platt]
> I don't think the biological activity of eating is what Pirsig had in 
> mind in the quote above.
> 
> [Arlo]
> No he didn't. And that's the point. Moral social suppression of 
> biological activity rests on proving that that activity threatens the 
> existence of society. Its not a carte blanche call for a return to 
> Victorian prudery.

It's a call to recognize the role of society in keeping biological forces (if
it feels good, do it) at bay. 

> [Platt]
> He would preserve the life of the criminal if the criminal does not 
> present a threat to society. Keep that in mind.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Of course you know, anyone can claim anyone is a threat to society. 
> Proving this threat beyond any reasonable doubt is what is key, 
> simply claiming so does not give us provocation to execute 
> willy-nilly. In other words, you have to prove to everyone why even 
> the continued existence of an incarcerated person threatens the very 
> fabric of society. And then, if so, and provided the threat is 
> biological and NOT intellectual, then you can morally execute.

Right. Terrorists are threats to society. Witness Iraq.

> A poor, unemployed miner is not a threat to society, certainly not a 
> "biological threat". And as such providing for his health and medical 
> needs is a moral function of society.

Nowhere in the MOQ do I see the justification for forcing Peter to pay for
Paul's illness. If you think it does, please provide the supporting quotes.



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/