Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Sun Dec 05 2004 - 21:08:36 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    > msh says:
    > You're being deliberately obtuse in order to be contrary, or at least I
    > hope your obtuseness here is deliberate. Have you ever considered
    > patenting this discursive technique? You could sell it in a package along
    > with the Platteral Shift and the Holden Circularity.

    Why you find it necessary to open up with a pack of gratuitous insults is
    beyond me, so I'll leave that to the psychiatrists to unravel..

    > But I'll go one more round, in case you really are interested in my
    > opinion. Any state interested in equal protection of the rights of
    > ALL its citizens will outlaw the acts you mention, so the state will
    > be enforcing legal not moral standards. As I've said below and
    > elsewhere, guidelines for determining what should be illegal may come from
    > a variety of moral standards, or simply from reason alone.

    Rights of citizens are moral concerns. If you don't believe me, check with
    > platt:
    > Two problems with the golden rule. 1) It provides moral guidance only
    > when one has made a previous moral judgment of how others should
    > treat oneself.
    > msh says:
    > Why is this a problem? Before deciding on a course of action I
    > simply ask myself: "Will the effects of my action impact another in a way
    > that I would view as negative, were I in his place?"

    What you "view as negative" is a moral decision. Let's hope you're not a

    > platt:
    > 2) It cannot be used to derive judgments concerning one's moral
    > duties to oneself, for example, not committing suicide.
    > msh says:
    > It's not meant to assist with such judgements. In fact, the phrase
    > "one's moral duties to oneself" is meaningless, unless one already
    > believes in an absolute moral authority. In which case there'd be no need
    > for the Golden Rule, and this whole discussion would become dizzyingly
    > circular. Which you would find satisfactory, I'm sure.
    > :-)

    Drug overdosing is meaningless?

    > > 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.
    > platt:
    > Looks like you're willing to rely on ancient authorities to guide
    > you on the path of righteousness. Not that there's anything wrong
    > with that. After all, most people, religious and otherwise, make a
    > similar appeal, even though it has a parental flavor.
    > msh says:
    > I have no problem going with good ideas, regardless of who has
    > suggested them. My parents had many good ideas and rules, but they
    > were wise enough to know that enforcing rules without explaining them was a
    > serious abuse of parental power as well as neglect of their parental
    > responsibilities.

    I keep asking on what basis a group should decide what are good moral
    ideas besides the MOQ and I guess your answer is the golden rule and
    authority, although you seem to reserve the final say so to whatever the
    individual decides is a "good idea."
    At least you offer an answer to the question which few others have even
    attempted. For that, I thank you.


    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 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 21:09:08 GMT