[MD] An inquiry into morals

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt:


>>>> Platt said:
>>>>>> Is it moral for politicians to promise benefits using other  
>>>>>> people's
>>>>>> money?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seem to me that's a social pattern attempting to devour an  
>>>>>> intellectual
>>>>>> pattern and thus immoral.
>>
>> Platt:
>>> The intellectual pattern values our personal freedom from social  
>>> value coercion
>>> as exemplified by Pirsig's citing intellect as the moral basis  
>>> for the values
>> of
>>> free speech, freedom of the press and trial by jury. (Lila, 13)
>>
>> Steve:
>>  What is the intellectual pattern that is being
>> devoured by what social pattern?
>

Platt:
> The freedom to enjoy the fruits of your own labor being devoured by  
> a law requiring
> you to pay for benefits to others to whom you owe no duty.


Steve:
I'm still finding it hard to figure out what intellectual pattern of  
value you are talking about.

In Lila Pirsig said, "It is immoral for truth to be subordinated to  
social values since that is a lower form of evolution devouring a  
higher one." I don't see that as an issue with politicians proposing  
social programs.

If the fruits of labor represents money, we are talking about a  
social pattern of value, aren't we? Give to Caesar what is Caesar's  
then.

I don't know if you are still pushing the fourth level as an  
individual level. Maybe you are saying it is the individual as an  
intellectual pattern being put in service of society through  
taxation, a social pattern of value. Is that it?

It seems to me that this individual who is required by his government  
to pay taxes is as subject to social laws as she is to biological  
laws or to the law of gravity. I don't see anything immoral about it  
through comparison of types of patterns of value. The morality of it  
would be concerned with whether such taxation to pay for social  
programs really does improve society. If however, the government  
attempted to suppress his ideas it would be immoral in the "lower  
level attempting to devour a high level" sense that Pirsig discussed.

There is also the premise in your argument that individuals in a  
society have no duty to other individuals that I disagree with.  
According to the MOQ, there is no individual without society.

Regards,
Steve