[MD] The Moral Landscape

[John Carl]

Steve and Platt,

I'm just getting to this exchange and finding it very stimulating...

>
>
> > Steve:
> > Some measures that are frequently considered are life expectancy,
> > literacy rates, poverty rates, unemployment, % of children who are
> > underweight, GDP per capita, number of residents seeking asylum in
> > other countries, infant mortality, etc.
> >
> > Platt
> > Yes, a fine list of criteria. But, it illustrates my point about begging
> the
> > question. Why are such criteria chosen? Don't they all assume moral
> judgments?
> > If you agree that they do, then the real question becomes, "What is the
> basis
> > of those moral judgments? General agreement among civilized people?
> Natural
> > law? Instinct? I don't see how one can give a rational explanation of why
> it's
> > better, say, for one group to live longer than another.
>
> Steve:
> This sort of questioning can get silly fast if you want to play the
> extreme skeptic.


John:  Yes, if you're being skeptical just for the sake of skepticism, I
guess it could.  But I don't think Platt is being silly at all Steve.  In
fact, he has voiced some of my own questions very well.

Not that that's much exoneration on a "silliness" charge, I know.

Where I see us getting bogged down, is in analyzing a society based upon the
health and well -being of it's individuals.  I think that is wrong.  Suppose
you had a perfectly utopian society where all needs are met but there is no
impetus for dynamic evolution?  Platt's point about suffering seems very
apropos to me.  But then, seeking out the most suffering also seems highly
immoral.

What gets us out of this, is the analysis of society as a whole, rather than
the health of individuals.  Just like alternative medicince, which focuses
on the whole man, rather than the individual sick parts, we need an
alternative intellectuality which focuses on what makes a good society,
rather than focusing on the sick (or well) individuals within that society.
These kinds of questions are a bit more difficult to answer - which is why
reductionism is so attractive - but I think there are good answers.

Thanks for the debate,

John