[MD] Dawkins quotes RMP on religion.

[ian glendinning]

OK Krim, let me try ... inserted ...

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
> [Krimel]
> > What good is a system of morals based on levels when the hierarchy of
> > levels provides no guidance as to which level has moral priority?
>
> [Craig]
> The hierarchy of levels is the moral priority (see "Lila").
>
> [Krimel]
> I have already rephrased this question three times. In the cases of Easter
> Island and Haiti societies destroyed themselves by deforesting the
> respective islands. Social values dominated biological one. The MoQ value
> hierarchy would say morality was served.
>
[IG] And maybe it was in the grand scheme of things. They're only
small islands - fractions of the human cosmos, with only a small
farction of the intellectual level available to make that connection
between the biological (trees) and their own biological and social
needs  - and other members of the greater cosmos (ie you) were able to
learn that lesson.

> I would suggest that the 'levels' provide no guidance to morality at all and
> that what is at issue is balance and harmony among conflicting forces
> regardless of taxonomy or position in the taxonomy.

The problem with your example was two conflicting biological patterns
- humans and trees are biologically dependent (in ways that weren't
understood by the participants), before we get to look for more subtle
social / intellectual level patterns.

I think what you highlight is not a so much a problem with MoQ, but a
problem with (some) people expecting simplistic / normative /
prescriptive rules to automagically pop out of it, without
understanding, explanation and enlightenment.

Ian

>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>