From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Thu Dec 02 2004 - 02:57:58 GMT
On 1 Dec 2004 at 17:28, Platt Holden wrote:
ph:
> My motive is to bring to light and examine basic assumptions, and
to figure out what's the best morality for a nation to follow until
the MOQ is widely known and accepted.
>
> msh asks:
> Why just a nation, and not the world? Or, in a nation such as the
> US, why a national morality rather than one determined by each
> state, county, city...?
platt:
Well, Ian thinks that "why" questions like these are "damn" questions
and shouldn't be asked. Only "how" questions are legit. Glad to see
you don't agree and find that why questions are perfectly reasonable
questions, like Pirsig's biggy, "Why survive?"
msh says:
O, I don't think Ian dislikes all "Why" questions. He just
recognizes that some "Why" questions are not immediately answerable
and, sometimes, not even meaningful. Such questions are usually
asked with a ton of emotional baggage that makes it impossible to
offer a satisfactory answer. "What is the meaning of it all?" "Why
am I here?" "How could someone as magnificent as myself have evolved
by accident?" The answers might very well be: "There is no meaning
external to the meaning you make for yourself." And "You DID evolve
by accident, and, BTW, you aren't all that magnificent." But these
are not the answers the questioners want to hear.
As for Pirsig's question, I think the answer is in the MOQ: We
survive to become better. That's it. Why is this not enough?
platt:
My answer to your question is, "Choose the world if you want, or the
state, county, city--whatever social group suits your fancy. Just be
sure to cite the basis for your answer--innate moral sense,
self-interest, historical precedent, religious teaching, natural law,
contextulism, relativism, etc. and be prepared to justify your
assumptions."
msh said:
Well, I offered an answer before. You never said whether or not you
found it satisfactory. It's clear to me that our "national" morality
cannot be religious in nature because there are many religions, and
all of them are contradictory in one way or another, even within
themselves. Besides, I don't think nations or any other political
entities should be involved in the business of setting and enforcing
moral standards of any kind.
If you are asking for moral guidelines in the implementation of a
state's legal system, my first choice, sans the MOQ, would be a
secular-humanist version of the golden rule.
platt:
I don't know the answer. That's why I asked. But, it looks like a lot
of people find Christian teachings (love they neighbor) appealing as
a moral base whether they are willing to admit it or not.
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.
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
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 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 03:16:54 GMT