From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 22:12:00 GMT
Hi Platt,
PLATT
> I don't know where the number 7 came from. I was thinking of 2, at most
> 3. And it could just as well be 2 or 3 husbands for one wife. If limited
in
> this way, Rick's argument based on "social unrest" loses its punch...
RICK
The number 7 came from DMB's post. But it doesn't matter how many
multiple-spouses are at issue anyway. You don't even have to use a number.
Just use "x", where 'x' = any number greater than 1. Even limiting
polygamous (or polyandrous) rights to a mere 'x' number spouses, you would
still need 'x' times the number of women (or men) or else someone is going
to be mate-less. Lowering the number of permissible mates will make the
imbalance less severe, but statistically speaking, there will still be an
imbalance. If I marry 2 women, then some other guy will have none.
PLATT
> Once you change the legal and socially accepted definition of marriage
> as between one man and one women, all sorts of marital arrangements
> open up.
RICK
Yes Platt. Once we make our values less rigid, we open the door for
Dynamic Quality. In the context of marriage, this means considering the
possibility of marriages between two homosexuals, polygamous marriages,
polyandrous marriages, homosexual-bigamy, homosexual polyandry, homosexual
and bisexual group marriages... even heterosexual group marriages.
In the MOQ, in general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all
other things being equal, the more Dynamic choice is the more moral choice
(LILA ch13 p183 ). This means that defenders of the social status quo have
the burden of justifying the value of existing patterns over the value of
dynamic change.
PLATT
A society that tosses out proven patterns to control biology
> risks degeneration, as demonstrated by the 60's Hippies and explained
> by Pirsig in Chap. 24 of Lila.
PIRSIG (LILA ch24 p355)
What the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that the old Puritan and
Victorian social codes should not be followed blindly, but should not be
attacked blindly either. They should be dusted off and re-examined, fairly
and impartially, to see what they were trying to accomplish and what they
actually *did* accomplish toward building a stronger society.
RICK
This fair and impartial 'dusting off' and reexamining of those old
puritanical codes is what I've been trying to do in this thread. The idea
is to see what social goods the patterns claimed for themselves and what
social goods (if any) they were actually accomplishing. After we've
answered
those question than we'll really be ready to determine whether the
particular practice is worth preserving. Simply appealing to the MOQ cannot
make the decision for us. All it will tell us is that we shouldn't attack or
defend these practices "blindly," for whatever that's worth. Appealing to
'proven patterns' won't get us anywhere either since those are the very
things we are supposed to be scrutinizing.
Are laws against homosexual marriage really accomplishing anything
towards building a stronger society or are they just someone's ancient
prejudices masquerading as 'social controls of biology'? Davor and I think
the latter, you think the former.
Do laws against 'multiple-partner marriages' actually accomplish
anything towards a stronger society? I think so and I have tried to explain
at least one of the reasons why I think those 'old Puritan and Victorian
social codes' against bigamy do have value. That is, I've tried to explain
what it is about bigamy that's dangerous to a society (something you seem to
be unwilling or unable to do for me with respect to your views on gay
marriage, i really wish you had answered my 'multiple choice' question from
my post to you on 3/15). I think the laws against bigamy were trying to
keep the social statistics in such a balance as to give each individual an
equal opportunity to find a mate. Preventing social unrest is one very
practical reason for doing so.
Another reason might be to keep greater variety in the gene pool (10
women bearing children for different fathers will surely produce greater
variety than 10 women all bearing children for the same father). Greater
variety in the gene pool will surely increase the potential for creating
Dynamic individuals. I mean really, where would we all be today if Maynard
Pirsig was prevented from mating with Harriet Sjobeck-Pirsig because she was
already the 3rd wife of some other man?
take care,
rick
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 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 22:09:49 GMT