[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[Horse]

Hi Ham
I'm glad that you came out against what I have been saying and agreed 
with Mark because I think this illustrates how far Mark has moved away 
from Pirsigs MoQ - moved to a point where what he says is completely at 
odds with a Quality based reality - i.e. Quality = DQ + SQ etc. as per 
Pirsig - and why it puts him in a position where what he says has little 
value in terms of the metaphysics that the majority here understand.

Cheers

Horse

On 05/12/2010 06:38, Ham Priday wrote:
> On 12/04/2010, 4.49 PM, Horse wrote to Mark:
>
>
>> Rape and murder are defined at the social and/or intellectual level
>> and refer to specific acts of a biological nature. Just because 
>> animals don't have concepts of rape and murder when they have sex and
>> kill doesn't mean that certain acts of sex and killing by humans are
>> not rape or murder. ,,,
>
> [Mark responds]:
>> My point is that rape and murder do not exist at the biological level,
>> they are social constructs. Let's take the animal world for example
>> (bacteria are a little more difficult). There is no rape or murder at 
>> this level unless we want to anthropomorphize it. As such, the 
>> biological level is not predisposed to rape and murder, the social
>> level is. This is an important distinction. Each level creates it's 
>> own reality.
>
> I think Mark's assessment of morality as "a social construct" is correct.
>
> What human behavior is not an "act of a biological nature"? 
> Cannibalism is a biological act. Robbing a bank is a biological act. 
> Even legislating laws against rape and murder is a biological act. I 
> fail to see how compartmentalizing human activity into "biological", 
> "social" and "intellectual" levels makes the result more or less moral 
> than the act itself. Society is the adjudicator of morality, and 
> society is a collection of like-minded human beings. Animals collect 
> into flocks, packs, gaggles, herds, hives, etc., not law-abiding 
> "societies"; so animals do not have morality other than what is 
> instinctual for the preservation of the species.
>
> Now, one can argue that the urge to copulate has a biological basis, 
> as does the need to satisfy hunger by eating, whereas the desire to 
> rob a bank is motivated by monetary greed and thus is more 
> "intellectual in nature". But this does not affect the morality of the 
> act perpetrated as adjudged by society. The concept of a universal 
> moral standard to which evolution subscribes has no empirical or 
> metaphysical basis. If it did, neither nature nor mankind would 
> exhibit "immorality", and we would not be having this discussion.
>
> In my opinion,
> Ham
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa