[MD] Is this the inadequacy of the MOQ?

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

I think you present some stuff we can use... eventually.

But you haven't classified the argument for murder.  Where does it fit?

> I suppose it has been against the law to murder a child for about as long
> as there have been laws.

laws are intellectual endeavors.

> Murder is not even a social level value,

this is what I have been saying.  Are we in agreement?  Murder is an
idea?  death is biological; murder is ideological.


> 
> "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.

this is a wonderful excerpt, my question is, how do you classify the
'moral code' itself?  I do not think that Phaedrus is arguing that the
moral code that established the supremacy of biological life over
inanimate nature was itself purely biological.  And at the social level,
again, the moral codes themselves are not purely social entities.  I
cannot hang out with a moral code which proscribes against murder.  The
moral codes are intellectual patterns we hold in order to describe the
patterns we see at the inorganic, at the biological, at the social
levels.  and to further this, there are different societies.  Some are
cool with drugs and adultery.  Some are cool with what you would call
murder.  They might call it an honor killing or a sacrifice, etc.  That
is because 'murder' is an idea, while 'death' is the biology.  No?

 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,

see, what the moral code is.

 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)

I'm down with this.  I'm merely asking if we can rationally know what
the metaphysical basis for proscribing murder is.  my point is that,
since this is an intellectual endeavor, we cannot base our answer on
social, or biological, or inorganic outcomes.  I too have faith that the
murderer I presented would be acting immorally if he carried out the
murder.  How would we convince him?  That is, if he would submit to the
MoQ, how could we morally prevent the murder?

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again