Re: MD Universal Moral Standards

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Mon Jan 03 2005 - 13:10:18 GMT

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Ham says to Platt
    I assume this is not a rhetorical question, and that you are sincere in
    asking for my opinion.

    Ian says
    You wouldn't be the first to make that mistake.

    Ian.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:18 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Universal Moral Standards

    >
    > Hi Platt:
    >
    > > Now I know you reject the Biblical story and all things religious as
    > > "moral authority." So my question to you and to preacher Edington and to
    > > anyone else who considers the taking of a human life to be evil is:
    "Where
    > > did you ever get that idea?" After all, killing other human beings has
    > > been considered acceptable moral behavior by societies for millennia.
    >
    > I assume this is not a rhetorical question, and that you are sincere in
    > asking for my opinion.
    >
    > What I call 'evil' is an act that is contradictory to Essence. Because I
    > understand the individual as an agent of Essence, I believe it is
    generally
    > wrong to take the life of any living creature. But like all existential
    > morality, that principle is also relative. I'll swat a mosquito, kill a
    > spider, or trap a mouse in the attic with no particular remorse, because I
    > place a higher value on my personal well-being than on the lives of
    insects
    > and rodents which interfere with the quality of my life. Yes, this is a
    > (relativistic) value judgment. However, I am an anthropocentrist. I see
    > the taking of a human life as the greatest evil because I believe every
    > human being is (potentially at least) a center (locus or agent) of value
    > itself. It's his purpose in life; if we terminate man we destroy his
    > essence-value, which ultimately is an act against ourselves.
    >
    > The fact that my value system "reflects Commandment #6, 'Thou shall not
    > kill'', does not mean that I accept the Bible as my moral authority. I
    > think most religions subscribe to the sanctity of human life, and offer
    > scripture or commandments to support this tenet. Admittedly, having been
    > brought up in a nominally Christian household, I was undoubtedly
    influenced
    > early in life by such teachings. Had I been raised in a Greek household
    in
    > the time of Plato or Aristotle, I would have been taught the same values.
    > But if we believe in the sanctity of man, we don't need an 'authority' to
    > make us behave accordingly. That's why I have a problem with so-called
    > ethical philosophies designed to tell us how to live and act. By
    > standardizing ethics we diminish individual freedom. And freedom, as I
    see
    > it, is essential to the autonomy of man and the development of his
    > value-sense.
    >
    > > You see, Ham, although this site brings up all sorts of philosophical
    > > issues, it all got started with Pirsig's "Inquiry into Morals" and his
    > > metaphysics which sets out the initial premise that the universe is
    > > structured morally, that is not put together by chance combinations of
    > > masses and energies as scientists claim, but by " . . . the principle of
    > > "rightness" which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all
    life
    > > and to the evolving understanding of the universe which life has
    created."
    > > (Lila, 30)
    >
    > That's a nice thought, Platt, and it has a certain poetic ring to it. But
    > if it were really true, why would men have committed atrocities throughout
    > human history? Is the human being somehow "out of touch" with this moral
    > world structure, or is the world structure itself defective? Possibly
    man,
    > unlike lesser creatures, is simply too stupid to know right from wrong.
    If
    > the universe was created for man, and morality was predesigned into its
    > structure, what then do you think man's role is? Or do you accept the
    > atheistic nihilism of your comrades here who would deny any purpose beyond
    > the Lilatic "evolving understanding of the universe"? I had given you
    more
    > credit than that, so please don't disappoint me again!
    > .
    > After all, it was you who questioned my moral integrity --
    >
    > > God help us all
    > > because in your philosophy, who is to say anything is good or evil?
    >
    > Essentially yours,
    > Ham
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Tue Jan 04 2005 - 06:57:43 GMT