Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Platt Holden (
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 14:39:41 GMT

  • Next message: Ron Winchester: "Re: Ham; Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    > msh says:
    > Oh, c'mon. Do I have to use smiley faces every time I'm pulling your leg?
    > After all the exchanges we've had?

    Just wanted to remind you to be sure to take your medications.

    > Rights of citizens are moral concerns. If you don't believe me, check
    > with Pirsig.
    > msh says:
    > Who said they weren't? Now you're using "concerns" where before we
    > were talking about "standards." This is Platteral Shift.

    OK. Rights of citizens are based on moral standards. Happy?

    > platt:
    > What you "view as negative" is a moral decision. Let's hope you're
    > not a masochist.
    > msh says:
    > The fact that some people are mentally ill is one excellent reason
    > for NOT allowing the Golden Rule, or any other rules subject to
    > personal interpretation, to be used as anything more than a guiding
    > standard in developing society's laws. The ultimate arbiter of laws
    > to be enforced by the state should be truly representative Intellect, via
    > the free and open and thorough exchange of ideas.

    What is "representative intellect" as opposed to "intellect." A jury

    > platt:
    > Drug overdosing is meaningless?
    > msh says:
    > It is morally meaningless in a world consisting of one person, unless you
    > are claiming the existence of a moral authority external to that person.

    I think in the MOQ it's not morally meaningless for biology to overcome
    intellect, regardless of how many people are involved.
    > In a world where the person's overdose would have a negative impact
    > on others, say his family or loved ones, then of course his action is
    > morally meaningful. But this stems from his moral responsibility to
    > others, not to himself.

    Ditto above. (But of course, the MOQ has yet to be widely accepted as a
    moral guide.)

    > platt:
    > 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."
    > msh says:
    > Not quite. I've suggested the Golden Rule as a guiding standard, but
    > certainly not the final arbiter, in the intellectual and dynamic
    > development of society's laws.

    Let me try to avoid the dastardly Platteral shift by asking: The final
    arbiter of right and wrong is never final because it always in the process
    of "development. Right? If so, I'd conclude "Anything goes if you can get
    away with it."


    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 : Mon Dec 06 2004 - 14:50:13 GMT