[MD] An inquiry into morals

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Platt,
>>
>> Steve:
>> It seems that we have agreement that a society needs to provide  
>> for the
>> security, education, and health of its members. Societies can be  
>> judged
>> based on how well they do these things as well as their openness  
>> to dynamic
>> improvement and support of the evolution of the intellectual level.
>
> Yes, we agree.
>
>> Like you, I don't assume that these responsibilities of society  
>> equate to
>> responsibilities of government. (Note that these responsibilities  
>> of society
>>  translate into the rights of its citizens and then back into  
>> duties of
>> citizens to use intellect to support social patterns that provide  
>> for these
>> things.) These responsibilities of society are also those of  
>> parents to
>> children, husbands and wives to one another, and probably every  
>> other social
>> role we can think of.
>
> Yes, we agree.
>

and Pirsig seems to agree as well...
"My personal feeling is that this is how any further improvement of  
the world will be done: by individuals making Quality decisions and  
that's all. God, I don't want to have any more enthusiasm for big  
programs full of social planning for big masses of people that leave  
individual Quality out. These can be left alone for a while. There's  
a place for them but they've got to be built on a foundation of  
Quality within the individuals involved. We've had that individual  
Quality in the past, exploited it as a natural resource without  
knowing it, and now it's just about depleted. Everyone's just about  
out of gumption. And I think it's about time to return to the  
rebuilding of this American resource...individual worth. There are  
political reactionaries who've been saying something close to this  
for years. I'm not one of them, but to the extent they're talking  
about real individual worth and not just an excuse for giving more  
money to the rich, they're right. We do need a return to individual  
integrity, self-reliance and old-fashioned gumption. We really do. I  
hope that in this Chautauqua some directions have been pointed to."  
ZAMM part 4


>> Though the two groups tend to vilify one another, the differences  
>> between
>> liberals and conservative are partly if not largely differences in  
>> how they
>> see the role of government in performing these social  
>> responsibilities
>> rather than whether these are indeed the responsibilities of  
>> societies.
>
> Yes, how can government wisely use its coercive powers without  
> destroying
> the freedom necessary for intellect and Dynamic Quality to flourish?.
>
>> Both sides should give the other side credit for seeking to create  
>> a better
>> society based on the these responsibilities.
>
> The rode to hell is paved with good intentions. So I don't think  
> giving
> credit gets us very far.

Steve:
I don't think vilifying gets us far either. In fact, I think its gets  
in the way.


Regards,
Steve