[MD] What kind of ethical theory is the MOQ?

[John Carl]

I've said before Steve, that it is more moral of a germ to kill a dr, when
the dr. is dr. mengele.

But dabbling in the archives recently  dredged up this:

http://www.moqtalk.org/archivedata/moq_discuss/1998%20-%202002/9911/0041.html

MoQ simply points us to the compass that is available to us all. You can
argue where it comes from and whether it created the universe or whether
the universe created it but you can't get away from the bare fact of the
direct experience of quality at the basis of one's reality. What more does
one need?

Well, a couple of things.

First, one needs conceptual patterns which can deal with the question. A
language in which to operate.

Second, one must avoid the pattern of degeneracy when you've found a good
intellectual pattern to use, "Philosophy" or "English" for instance, and
you start assuming that the map is the territory. Don't get caught in a
static trap. Here's where the "Z" in "ZAMM" comes in handy.

Third, one needs freedom from preconceptions based upon a faulty
metaphysics. Thank you, SOM for getting us here but since you don't have
anything value-able to say, we'll take it from here.

Fourth, one needs confidence that Quality is real. That in the quietness
of mindlessness the buddha actually does exist. That my choices and
decisions and thoughts are guided by something more than randomn synaptic
clicks and switches.

Fifth, you need patience to work the problem out. The same way a mechanic
resolves stuckness by examining underlying patterns of value, you need to
examine the patterns of value that underlie any particular moral question.
That can take some time. Other people to discuss the problem can help a
lot, but people can also be the biggest hindrances with bad advice,
interruptions, distractions etc. It usually takes a lot longer than we'd
have expected.
When those pieces are in place, then MoQ provides a very useful compass.
That which is good - the only compass there is - and means to resolving any
issue.