From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Dec 18 2004 - 17:14:18 GMT
Platt/Dan,
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:27:11 +0000, "Platt Holden" wrote:
In the case of beer and wine,
> > many other cultures have looser restrictions than the US, and no harm is
done.
>
> Whether harm done or not, I have no evidence either way.
Their societies continue to exist, and so I'd take that as pretty strong
evidence.
> In deciding social morals you invoke intellect regularly. There must be
> some premises on which you rely to determine your decisions regarding
> those morals. Is the MOQ your one and only guide?
I think my "morals" are informed in part by secular humanism. And by what little
I know of Buddhism.
The intellectuals Pirsig condemned, rightly, were those that sided with
> > biological patterns over social pattens completely.
>
> I don't think "completely" is quite accurate.
Pirsig said:
"In the battle of society against biology, the new twentieth century
intellectuals have taken biology's side. Society can handle biology alone by
means of prisons and guns and police and the military. But when the
intellectuals in control of society take biology's side against society then
society is caught in a cross-fire from which it has no protection." (LILA, 24).
He continues a few paragraphs later...
"It's this intellectual pattern of amoral 'objectivity' that is to blame for the
social detioration of America, because it has undermined the static social
values necessary to prevent deterioration. In its condemnation of social
repression as the enemy of liberty, it has never come forth with a single moral
principle that distinguishes a Galileo fighting social repression from a common
criminal fighting social repression. It has, as a result, been the champion of
both."
This condemnation is of a specific intellectual pattern (biology above social),
a result of "amoral objectivity".
> That's the rub. Which static social patterns should be preserved from
> destruction?
It is not simlpe, I'll agree.
In short, in the pursuit of
> > wealth, freedom "reigned", in the pursuit of happiness, freedom was very
> > much straightjacketed.
>
> Without freedom to do business, the pursuit of happiness is indeed
> straightjacketed.
I was not condemning the freedom to do business, only that there is more to
"freedom" than that.
> > "Individual freedom" is more than merely a marketplace phenomenon.
>
> Yes. It's also a political phenomenon.But a free marketplace is a
> necessary condition of individual freedom.
I'd say it's also a "moral" phenomenon. The more freedoms, the more one can hope
to find DQ. Achieving the balance, without destroying society, is key. But you
can't talk about "freedom" as if conducting business is the only part that
really matters.
> > How else? Do you believe all law should be determined soley by majority
> > decisions?
>
> Yes, provided the minority is not prevented from becoming the majority and
> that individual rights specifically stated in a democratic nation's
> constitution are not violated.
Should a majority have the right to amend the constituion to change this?
> > For a judge to order that the St. Paddy's day parade commission HAD to
> > allow marchers to march with homosexual banners, it was immoral.
>
> On what basis?
>
> > When a referendum prohibits a gay couple from receiving the same state
> > benefits as a heterosexual couple, it is immoral.
>
> On what basis?
For a quick answer, and again this is something that we should perhaps move to a
new thread(?), I'd say that in both cases the "state" was infriging on the
ability of citizens to act individually or in groups, peaceably, and without
interference.
Remember that the judge was not removing a ban on gays from participating (the
would have been a moral decision), but forced the parade commission to allow a
group to march with a specific message that had nothing to do with St. Paddy's
day.
In the second case, the state provides benefits to couples to promote monogamy
and preserve inheritances. If homosexuality is not deviant biological behavior,
and it is not, then denying these benefits to gays is comparable to denying
them to interracial couples.
> > The fat content alone is out of control.
>
> Would you vote to pass a law that dictated how much fat content there
> should be in every type of food?
Absolutely not. But I am in favor of combatting unhealthy eating habits with
education and "consumer reports" type reporting on the effects, content and
whatnot of marketed foods.
> No, but I doubt if they believe they are serving the public unhealthy
> food. Any food may be deemed unhealthy if over-indulged.
Agreed to the second comment. As to the first, well, I'd say they are informed
enough to know that their food contains more fat and cholestorol than nearly
any other food out there. What they "believe" about this, I couldn't say.
> Well, I wonder why they allowed it [McDs in a hospital] in the first place.
Probably because
> they rightly concluded that a hamburger now and then never harmed anybody.
Probably because of revenue generated.
Arlo
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 : Sat Dec 18 2004 - 17:17:35 GMT