Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:05:59 +0100
Hi Doug and Squad
Doug Renselle wrote:
> But, would it not be instructive now, at this special event, to answer
> the question: "Why?" Why is DQ both moral and immoral?
Maybe the reason we, at least Diana and I, had a hard time coming to
an agreement about DQ is that we talk about DQ at different points in
time.
I'd like to repeat the analogy between DQ and freedom of speech. We
think freedom of speech is very important even though what is said
isn't always agreed upon. This is also the case with DQ. It is
absolutely imperative not to inhibit DQ nor freedom of speech. At
the same time, the results from this may or may not please everyone.
I guess I've been talking about "the results of DQ" without really
stating this. DQ, as in "the possibility of change", is always moral.
I guess this is what Diana means with DQ. The DQ as in "the results of
DQ" is sometimes considered moral and sometimes immoral. However, the
results of DQ isn't actually DQ, it is latched SPoV.
If the DQ in your question is "the possibility of change" then I'd
say mu, that is always moral.
What confuses me is my interpretations of the words moral and good.
When I see "DQ is moral", I think of DQ as in "the possibility of
change", but when I see "DQ is good", I think of the result of DQ.
Anyone have a dictionary handy?
> Strangely, I sense this may relate to Bo's recent efforts on Eugenics.
I thought so too. I think eugenics can be used in two ways. One way is
to boost DQ and enhance diversity. Another way is to inhibit DQ and try
to deterministically accomplish better genes. The thing is, we are far
to ignorant about genetics to be able to determine betterness in advance,
so the former way is moral and the latter is immoral.
Magnus
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST