[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[david buchanan]

Tim said to dmb:
I never advocated murder.


dmb says:

Yea, I know. And I never said you did.


Tim said:
The question is, if that hypothetical child murderer were real, how do you classify him according to MoQ?  His argument must be classified as being in the intellectual level.  Right?  So my question is then, how do we distinguish quality within the intellectual level itself?


dmb says:

The murderer's argument must be classified as intellectual? No. Of course not. And that's the assertion that sounds so crazy.

I suppose it has been against the law to murder a child for about as long as there have been laws. In pre-modern societies there have been social level practices that allow for other kinds of killing, such as ritual sacrifice, but that would have been distinguished from "murder" even in that context. Murder is not even a social level value, let alone an intellectually justifiable act. It might count as moral in the biological realm, but like I said, there are animals that won't stoop that low. Killing can be immoral even on the biological level but most animals kill to in order to live and there's just no way around that. Meat is murder and so is salad.

"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life - conventional morals - proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order -democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code...  Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of conflicting patterns of value. This conflict is the residue of evolution." (Lila 163). 

The Metaphysics of Quality "says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code of intellect-vs.-society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social control. Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by jury; habeas corpus; government by consent—these "human rights" are all intellect-vs.-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality these "human rights" have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level of life. They are for real." (Lila 307)