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

[Magnus Berg]

Hi

On 2010-09-16 14:13, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2010 at 11:20, Magnus Berg wrote:
>
> Hi Platt
>
> That was interesting. Wasn't you one the SOL people? Then we can remove
> you from that list. You seem to have a much broader view of the
> intellectual level than only S/O logic.
>
> [P]
> How so? Whether you think the intellectual level is SOL or something else, it
> still is morally superior to the social level.

I was commenting your view, not mine. And it was a bit off the topic at 
hand, still interesting.

> And you didn't answer my question: How does that work?
>
> The question was asking how society can treat humans as both morally
> superior and morally inferior at the same time. I say it can't, and that
> is why the original question those distinguished scientists ask is hard.
> Society has to weigh the higher and lower morality against each other
> and make a duhsicion. It can't use the clear rules of the MoQ, it
> becomes a compromise.
>
> [P]
> If Pirsig can't explain to you how that works by his own words, then I
> certainly can't. Pirsig has made it clear that the MOQ doesn't provide "clear
> rules" in deciding all moral questions but rather " . . .a large football field
> that gave meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line but
> did not decide which team would win."

I'm not wondering how it works. I don't think Pirsig is right on target 
with this one, more of a mumble.

> I guess the MOQ is like your "stacks." Not everybody buys it or them.

You once said, (or quoted someone else) "Philosophy is about examining 
underlying assumptions". Stacks are such underlying assumptions. You 
switch between them, Pirsig does too, you just don't know it.

	Magnus








>
>
> On 2010-09-15 22:56, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
>> 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
>>