Murdock, Mark (Mark.Murdock@Unisys.Com)
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:20:32 +0100
<snip>
> To my mind I am
> wondering if the Biological level should not be placed above the
> Social
> level and maybe even the Intellectual level since Biological Ethics is
> the
> bedrock of morals that must be satisfied first if all else is to
> follow.
>
</snip>
We need a strong foundation of organic values from which to build a
society and a strong foundation of social values from which to grow
ideas.
The hierarchy is only a model (not dogma) for choosing between competing
values or morals. Environmental values cannot take precedence over
legitimate social or intellectual values.
Deciding what is legitimate is the difficult task of course. Sophists
use the art of rhetoric to persuade. If we believe in Quality and the
idea that we experience it before reason, then we believe we know what
is Good. So, in any judgement between competing morals, we listen to
the rhetoricians and listen to our heart.
Remember that while each level seeks freedom from the level below, that
doesn't give it the right to destroy its foundation. A balance is
found. A key to the survival of our environment and our society.
Even though the intellectual values are above social values, that
doesn't mean to me that they are wholly superior. All it means is that
they have the moral right to change the level below it. Society can
build a city on a patch of land, Democracy can change the power
structure of society, and so on.
In this way, biological values are well suited under social and
intellectual. They have protection by both of these levels. Should
have that is.
M.
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST