From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 05 2004 - 21:08:36 GMT
> msh says:
> You're being deliberately obtuse in order to be contrary, or at least I
> hope your obtuseness here is deliberate. Have you ever considered
> patenting this discursive technique? You could sell it in a package along
> with the Platteral Shift and the Holden Circularity.
Why you find it necessary to open up with a pack of gratuitous insults is
beyond me, so I'll leave that to the psychiatrists to unravel..
> But I'll go one more round, in case you really are interested in my
> opinion. Any state interested in equal protection of the rights of
> ALL its citizens will outlaw the acts you mention, so the state will
> be enforcing legal not moral standards. As I've said below and
> elsewhere, guidelines for determining what should be illegal may come from
> a variety of moral standards, or simply from reason alone.
Rights of citizens are moral concerns. If you don't believe me, check with
Pirsig.
> platt:
> Two problems with the golden rule. 1) It provides moral guidance only
> when one has made a previous moral judgment of how others should
> treat oneself.
>
> msh says:
> Why is this a problem? Before deciding on a course of action I
> simply ask myself: "Will the effects of my action impact another in a way
> that I would view as negative, were I in his place?"
What you "view as negative" is a moral decision. Let's hope you're not a
masochist.
> platt:
> 2) It cannot be used to derive judgments concerning one's moral
> duties to oneself, for example, not committing suicide.
>
> msh says:
> It's not meant to assist with such judgements. In fact, the phrase
> "one's moral duties to oneself" is meaningless, unless one already
> believes in an absolute moral authority. In which case there'd be no need
> for the Golden Rule, and this whole discussion would become dizzyingly
> circular. Which you would find satisfactory, I'm sure.
> :-)
Drug overdosing is meaningless?
> > msh says:
> > Nothing wrong with loving thy neighbor, IMO. Though the idea did
> > not originate with Christianity. And the Golden Rule goes back to
> > Confucius, at least.
>
> platt:
> Looks like you're willing to rely on ancient authorities to guide
> you on the path of righteousness. Not that there's anything wrong
> with that. After all, most people, religious and otherwise, make a
> similar appeal, even though it has a parental flavor.
>
> msh says:
> I have no problem going with good ideas, regardless of who has
> suggested them. My parents had many good ideas and rules, but they
> were wise enough to know that enforcing rules without explaining them was a
> serious abuse of parental power as well as neglect of their parental
> responsibilities.
I keep asking on what basis a group should decide what are good moral
ideas besides the MOQ and I guess your answer is the golden rule and
authority, although you seem to reserve the final say so to whatever the
individual decides is a "good idea."
At least you offer an answer to the question which few others have even
attempted. For that, I thank you.
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 21:09:08 GMT