[MD] Another parallel

[craigerb at comcast.net]

John, 

First a quibble: 



[John] 



> there's no written language and thus no intellect 

Nope, because… 



[John] 
> …much of the American charter came from ideas gleaned from the way 
> Algonquin Indians governed themselves? 



…because the Algonquin Indians had no written language until 1663 when it was provided for them by whites.   So the Algonquin Indians had 
ideas/intellect BEFORE they had a written language. 

[Craig, previously] 
> I see at least 4 complications: 

> 1) how to identify intellectual values 

> 2) how to distinguish high- from low- quality intellectual values 

> 3) how to determine whether an intellectual value can be forced 

> upon others or whether others can be forced to support it 

> 4) what to do if the choice is between a low-quality intellectual 
> value & a high-quality social value 
[John] 

> 1) Intellectual values -    The Value of intellect is Truth. 

  IMHO truth occurs at each level; REASON only at the intellectual level. 
(REASON is also a great magazine.) 
[John] > 4) Is "low-quality" the same as "bad"? 
IMHO yes. 
[John] 
> Does an idea having relatively low > quality differ radically from an idea containing negative quality? 
IMHO no. 
[John] 
> does a high quality social value > mean one that gets ME rich and famous, or does it mean one that makes 
> a society grow and prosper? 
IMHO the latter. 
[John] 
> Self-denial is something "everybody knows" is good.   It's a value 
> which puts others before me. 
If “self-denial” means denying flourishing as an individual, then not 
good.   If “self-denial” means prudently postponing instant gratification, then good. 
[John] 
> Putting others before me [Craig:   “altruism”, not 
> “self-denial”] is a high quality social value, 
> for it puts the needs of the society above 
> the needs of the individual. 

  But Adam Smith argues that society prospers more by each 
pursuing their self-interest (“invisible hand’). 
[John] 
> It's more moral for an 

> idea to kill a society than it is for a society to kill an idea.    


But is it more moral for a bad idea to kill a good society than it is for a good society to kill 
a bad idea? 
Craig 




Craig