[MD] The MOQ and Slavery

[skutvik at online.no]

Steve

22 Aug. 2009 at 9:17, Steve Peterson wrote: 

> All I was trying to get at is whether there is something different
> about the way the word "true" is used in moral assertions as
> compared to factual assertions.

Moral as subjective different from objective facts is intellect's "moral"  
Although the levels have lifted existence to ever higher morals they are 
static, meaning unable to see outside their respective horizons. 
Remember how Pirsig spoke about  "...the old books of the Bible 
displaying no intellect... etc." the ancients did not know the term 
"moral" because it indicates something subjective. It wasn't moral to 
follow God's commanments, but a necessity  because "so sayeth the 
Lord!". 

It's not only the religions you will not find anything about moral in 
Homer's "Iliad" or "Odyssey", their guidelines were the social Aretê of 
valor, indifference to pain, duty to whatever were their causes. Now, 
ZAMM says that Aretê was moral itself, but in a MOQ hindsight it's 
plain that the SOM displacing Aretê event  was intellect's moral 
emerging from social moral. And with intellect the term "moral" 
emerged in the way we use it if it is TRUE - objectively seen -  that 
slavery is bad.            

> I've also been trying to distinguish justification from truth. Your
> comments about the ancients not having access to the such
> intellectual values as human universal human rights is not an
> argument that slavery was not immoral but rather that the ancients
> may have been justified in believing that slavery was not immoral
> even though it was immoral.

Intellect is the highest moral yet static so the MOQ itself has no 
particular opinion on slavery. It just says that if the bells toll and 
intellect's latch give way we drop to the stronger social latch and 
slavery may come into fashion again.
 
    
Bodvar