[MD] An inquiry into morals

[Platt Holden]

Hi Steve, 

> >>>> 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.

The intellectual pattern is individual liberty, expressed as pointed out 
above in intellect's insistence on free speech, freedom of the press, trial 
by jury, etc. as against the social value of conformity to authority and/or 
tradition. 
 
> 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.

The truth is politicians propose social programs using other people's money
coerced from the people, not offered voluntarily, resulting in a loss of 
individual liberty. That's the moral issue.  

> 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.

Property is the fruit of labor. Money is merely a symbol of property, 
useful in exchanges in a free market. The moral question is, "What is 
Caesar's?" 

> 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?

I'm reflecting what I consider to be moral as presented in the structure of 
MOQ where a hierarchy of morality is presented. 

> 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.

According to the MOQ just as it is moral for life to fight against the law 
gravity, it is moral for individuals to fight against the laws of society 
that inhibit liberty. This moral principle was eloquently supported by 
Martin Luther King not to mention the Founding Fathers and many others. 

> 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.

And there is no society without individuals. Recall that the Giant 
(Pirsig's symbol of society) uses individuals to suit its own purposes and 
disposes of them when they are no longer useful. (Remind you of any recent 
dictatorships?) 

As Pirsig explains, society is needed to defend individuals from being 
devoured by biological forces. That is the primary purpose and moral 
sanction for the law, the military and the police.    

What other specific duties to other individuals do you find in the moral 
structure set forth in the MOQ? 

Regards,
Platt