Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

Date: Sat Dec 04 2004 - 06:55:21 GMT

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: Anti-Theism (was MD Is Morality Relative?)"

    In a message dated 12/4/04 12:53:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

    1. By what belief system or objective evidence do you believe that morality
    evolves or progresses from lower to higher quality?

    Hi Ham,
    I am not a part of this discussion, but I would like to offer my thought on
    this. It is Quality.
    Morality evolves from making Quality decisions. Christian Morality would be
    to follow the laws set down in the Bible, but even then morality is relative.
    'Though shall not kill.' -or- 'Though shall not kill a member of your tribe'
    can be followed blindly. Even in your own tribe, there will be instances when
    you must kill in order to save the whole, or protect the innocent from death
    or torture from an evil tyrant within your tribe.
    "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" cannot be taken
    literally, as they may not want what you do.
    You can choose skeptic morality statements as a reason not to practice
    morality, but like Quality, it is best served to the individual in individual
    circumstances. The definition of a moral law is subject to the consequences of
    any particular circumstance, and cannot be defined in advance as the
    circumstances that would lead to the Quality decision cannot be predicted even if you
    took all historical or experienced scenarios into consideration.
    The Quality decision is a moral decision as it is the best decision you can
    make in the moment.
    This requires suspension of the ego, as the ego lends yourself to anger,
    pride, etc., in your decision making.
    The MOQ, as with any philosophy or metaphysics cannot create a basis to
    judge this "better or worse." This better or worse decision must come from the
    individual, or individual City-state in consideration to the circumstances that
    present themselves.
    You may extend this morality out to include all creatures big and small, and
    this is IMHO how it should be. We should live in harmony with nature, and I
    do not condone the killing of animals to clothe if it is not necessary, and it
     is no longer necessary to do so. If wolves have become a problem in an area,
     then maybe they could be moved to an area where your children will not be in
     harm's way. This would be a High Quality decision over the Low Quality
    decision to just grab the rifles and start shooting. If you have fire ants in your
    yard, it would not be feasible to move the fire ants to a better location,
    and your children take precedence over the fire ants. A human life takes
    precedence over a cancer cell, as we are not cancer cells, and do not lend
    ourselves to the wishes of the cancer cells that we allow them harmonious relation
    to us.
    I don't feel I need to take this any further, as I feel you understand where
    it is headed. Morality is relative. Quality is relative. You cannot create
    laws that fit all moral conduct, or guidelines to fit all Quality decisions.
    What I said about Quality in my earlier post being interchangeable with the
    Absolute or 'Nothingness' holds true if this is how you see your own
    'Essence'. For short, once again, using Christianity, God would be the highest
    Quality, and the cancer cell one of the lowest forms of Quality as it destroys the
    body that lends itself to the soul. (understand this is only an example, and
    not a statement that Christianity take precedence over other religions)
    2. How does "learning more and more fundamental physics" relate to this

    The MOQ does not teach physics. It offers an understanding of how
    everything, inorganic, biological, social, and intellect are related, and depend on one
    another to live harmoniously within a world of differing social cultures,
    religions, and politics, and different levels of intellect.
    No culture, religion, or political state is absolutely superior to any
    other. No intellect is absolutely superior to any other. An academic is not
    superior to the lowly dropout. The academic knows more of the field in which they
    studied, and maybe better rhetoric, but this is only one field. What counts is
    how much you know about the life in which you are a participant; not an idle
    observer; not a creator; but a participant in the creation of a better life
    for all.
    As opposed to the physics, were speaking metaphysics which is no longer
    Aristotelian, but and attempt at simple and inclusive knowledge and guidelines as
    best as we can do in an abstract to the attainment of a Quality life for
    mankind; not the individual man; not the Western man, but all mankind, and it
    must be extended to include a world of more familiarity with all of man.
    There is not absolute law to a moral question, as it is all relative, as I
    offered earlier from James, who I thought made a pretty decent case;
    How's that?

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 04 2004 - 07:19:16 GMT