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

Thu Sep 16 18:06:29 PDT 2010

You should'nt bother because there is no difference.

You shouldn't bother because all you'll offer is the same old excuses not
to answer.

----- Original Message ----
From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 9:00:22 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

different post, answer the question.

----- Original Message ----
From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 7:49:53 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

You claim I don't use reason, then ask me to explain. Why should I bother? 

On 15 Sep 2010 at 17:26, X Acto wrote:

> Fact is Platt, there is no difference compared to privatised health care
> just who is deciding who lives and who dies.
> 
> Practicaly speaking, why does this matter?
> 
> you still have some beuricratic jerkhole deciding who lives and who dies.
> 
> their just getting paid differently.
> 
> explain this.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 8:20:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?
> 
> Do we need to revisit the MoRaT interpretation?
> 
> How Pirsig quotes can mean anything we like them to mean?
> 
> probably not
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Wed, September 15, 2010 4:56:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
>       
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
>      
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html

Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html