[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[plattholden at gmail.com]

How does that work? Easy. Intellect is the individual, society is the group 
(the Giant). The individual is morally superior to society, society morally 
superior to biology. This is basic MOQ. Perhaps the following quote from Pirsig 
will make clear the moral difference between the levels: 

"When a society is not itself threatened, as in the execution of individual 
criminals, the issue becomes more complex. In the case of treason or 
insurrection or war a criminal´s threat to a society can be very real. But if 
an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a criminal,  
then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral justification 
for killing him.
What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a biological 
organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society. Whenever you kill a 
human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a 
collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society. 
Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than 
social patterns of value. Just as it is more moral for a doctor to kill a germ 
than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill a society than it is 
for a society to kill an idea. (Lila, 13)

Key idea: Whenever you kill a human being (an individual), you are killing a 
source of thought too. 

Which makes the decision of who lives and who dies when a expensive life-saving 
drug or technique is available is, as two distinguished scientists agreed, "the 
most difficult ethical dilemma facing science today."     



Magnus Berg wrote:

"Platt Holden" <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:
>Magnus,
>
>Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that you disagree with the
>following from Pirsig:?
>
>"It 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 life from a lower level of
>life. They are for real." (Lila, 24)

I'm saying that the world isn't that black and white as that quote makes 
it seem. Just this morning (Swedish time), you pulled another quote (one 
of the LC comments) where Pirsig asserted society's right to control its 
biological inhabitants. Don't you realize that the two quotes, the LC 
quote and the one you provided here are directly contradictory? One 
quote asserts the individual human's morality over society, and the 
other society's morality over the individual human!

How does that work?

The answer is stacks. The original question is hard because it's not 
black and white. Depending on which stack you focus on, you get a 
different answer.

	Magnus