Hi Platt and Folks
On 20 Jan 99, at 8:55, Platt Holden wrote:
> HORSE:
> > It had always been my impression that the MOQ is about Quality and how
> > it creates reality.
>
> Hmmm. I always thought the MOQ was about morals, as in "LILA-An Inquiry
> into Morals."
Also true. Quality =Reality=Morality. But how come there is such reticence to discuss
a holistic moral system with Quality as the base. Whenever this comes up we nearly
always get the same old hackneyed arguments. Most people, including many on this
mailing list, still see Morality in terms of what they've been taught from birth and fail to
see the potential of a new Quality-centred ethical system. This includes many of the
recent posts regarding Good and Evil - rehashed old attitudes.
> HORSE:
> > Platt, it was not my intention to LITERALLY replace the terms Good, Bad,
> > Evil etc. with Low Value and High Value. What I was suggesting was that
> > the idea of Good and Evil in their old Socio-Religious context are
> > superceded by an MOQ context. Good and Evil are Quality/Value
> > judgements. What is perceived as Good at one level may also be
> > simultaneously Evil at another - what's Good for Society may be Evil for
> > Biology. This is contextual not relative.
>
> Help me here. What's the distinction in your mind between "relative" and
> "contextual?" To me both words mean, "dependent on ..."
Apologies for my lack of clarity. If you look in a dictionary you can find a whole bunch
of meanings for both. The sense in which I meant the above was that the contextual
view is holistic, whereas the relative view is reductionist. An act of "evil" should not be
seen in isolation and merely compared to another similar act. It must be seen as part
of the overall environment in which it has been created.
> HORSE:
>
> > What worries me about a Good/Evil debate is that there is an assumption
> > that there is ONLY Good or Evil. A person is Good OR Evil. An action is
> > Good OR Evil. Which brings us right back to the all or nothing view.
> > Good and Evil are present by degree. Was Joe Stalin ALL evil. Was Gandhi
> > ALL good. No! The Goodness or Badness is the degree to which Quality is
> > present. This is also the foundation of Justice and Punishment. The
> > severity of punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime (in
> > theory!). Each level recognizes that there are degrees of Quality and
> > the Static/Dynamic and inter-level conflict are of degree and not
> > absolutes.
>
> Horse, I think you and I have been down this road before where you see
> most everything in shades of grey whereas I see grey as the area between
> the absolutes of black and white. When it comes to good and evil, I agree
> with you that shades of grey or "degrees of fitness and rightness" is the
> more realistic, intelligent view.
I recognize that there are extremes, but I balk at the idea of absolutes. Shades of grey
is the more pragmatic approach in most situations where moral judgements are made.
> But, I wouldn't say that was an absolute, would you? :-)
Absolutely not! ;-)
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST