From: QUINTIN PHILLIPS Area: Base of Set To: MICHAEL AQUINO 14 May 94 19:33:00 Subject: Re: Group-Hierarchy UpdReq MA> Morality necessitates making choices - the more difficult and complex MA> the choice, the more the test of morality. Often the test is between MA> morality as an abstract factor and any number of practical or MA> utilitarian considerations. Then the moral person may still make a MA> decision based only, or primarily, on his moral convictions - and stand MA> the consequences of appearing to be socially "inconvenient". My question is, where does our moral person aquire his morals? I have found, with the onset of "maturity", that those good old fashioned absolutes of good and bad have been tempered to non-threatening or threatening. If your life-style is under threat or worse still if the way you think is threatened the threat is bad, maybe evil and most likely immoral. Nine times out of ten moral values are driven by guilt and vary rarely based on rational thought. MA> As I look back on the 20th century, I think that perhaps its greatest MA> failure has been its inability to come to grips with the management of MA> human population vs. the capacities of the planet. Whatever else one may.. As altruistic as my stance on overpopulation may seem, it really comes back to life-style. I was brought up in the English countryside and I hate the thought that I and any children that I may like to have would not know fresh air and green hills. The Chinese have the right idea with their mandatory maximum family size of two. It is easy to legislate to regulate family size but we are up against the moral minority again. I bet that the moralists would say that it is right and proper for the Chinese to regulate population but totally wrong in Western countries. MA> engineering. We can and routinely do create better, stronger, and MA> healthier horses, dogs, etc. - but the notion of applying such science MA> to humanity is this century's strongest taboo. Our future will pay the MA> price for it; indeed the present is already doing so in terms of the MA> vast areas of human misery in the world of 1994. We have one of the best situations in history for genetic improvement. For the first time since the dawn of human existence the whole gene pool can be mixed an matched as much as we want without the need of laboratory engineering. Though as we know, there is more money in the Frankenstein method of genetic manipulation than the old fashioned horse breading method. Getting back to Group-Hierarcy, I think it comes back to the moral insistence that no one should be allowed to be stronger or smarter than the person at the top of the pile. Politicians and public servants being the top of the pile means that the general populous should have weaker minds than these bastions of society. T.V. is, in fact, achieving this. All the Best Quintin 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Julia Phillips Area: Base of Set To: QUINTIN PHILLIPS 15 May 94 20:18:28 Subject: Group-Hierarchy UpdReq Hello QUINTIN! 14 May 94 19:33, QUINTIN PHILLIPS wrote to MICHAEL AQUINO: MA>> Then the moral MA>> person may still make a decision based only, or primarily, on MA>> his moral convictions - and stand the consequences of MA>> appearing to be socially "inconvenient". QP> My question is, where does our moral person aquire his morals? Moral convictions have to be subjective, and so therefore can often be at odds with social behaviour... or "inconvenient", as Michael puts it :) As to where one acquires morals, I would suggest that they are initially absorbed from our own immediate social group, but that they are amended through experience. In other words, just like "good" and "evil", "morality" is something which each of us perceives through personal experience. QP> I have found, with the onset of "maturity", that those good old QP> fashioned absolutes of good and bad have been tempered to QP> non-threatening or threatening. If your life-style is under QP> threat or worse still if the way you think is threatened the QP> threat is bad, maybe evil and most likely immoral. Nine times QP> out of ten moral values are driven by guilt and vary rarely based QP> on rational thought. Exactly :) The issue becomes: "how does this affect *ME* personally? My life, my lifestyle?" Through this personal experience, we evaluate whether something is to our liking or not, and categorise it accordingly. MA>> As I look back on the 20th century, I think that perhaps its MA>> greatest failure has been its inability to come to grips with MA>> the management of human population vs. the capacities of the MA>> planet. Whatever else one may.. QP> As altruistic as my stance on overpopulation may seem, it really QP> comes back to life-style. I was brought up in the English QP> countryside and I hate the thought that I and any children that I QP> may like to have would not know fresh air and green hills. :) QP> The Chinese have the right idea with their mandatory maximum QP> family size of two. It is easy to legislate to regulate family QP> size but we are up against the moral minority again. QP> I bet that the moralists would say that it is right and proper QP> for the Chinese to regulate population but totally wrong in QP> Western countries. What is of more concern to me is not that certain countries legislate in terms of family size, but that in the society in which I live (and indeed, in the society in which I used to live until 1988), rational, intelligent people have identified a population problem, and as a result, many have chosen not to have children to avoid adding to the problem. My concern is that those who either can't recognise the problem, or couldn't care less about the problem, are breeding tomorrow's generation. In either case, it seems to me that the gene pool will suffer. QP> Getting back to Group-Hierarcy, I think it comes back to the QP> moral insistence that no one should be allowed to be stronger or QP> smarter than the person at the top of the pile. Politicians and QP> public servants being the top of the pile means that the general QP> populous should have weaker minds than these bastions of society. That final sentence is the most frightening comment I've seen in a long time! The thought of having a weaker mind than the average politican is enough to send me screaming into my next incarnation... QP> T.V. is, in fact, achieving this. One of the reasons I got rid of my TV over 11 years ago ;-) B*B Julia 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Albertus Magnus Area: Base of Set To: All 16 May 94 19:29:42 Subject: Recovered Memory Case UpdReq From The LA Times, 5/14/94 By Maria L. LaGanga, Times Staff Writer "In a landmark case that could fundamentally alter how therapists do their jobs -- and could increase their liability -- a Napa Valley Superior Court jury ruled Friday that two Orange Country therapists implanted false memories of child abuse in a patient and wrongly harmed her father. "The jury decided on a 10-2 vote that therapist Marche Isabella, Dr. Richard Rose, chief of psychiatry at Western Medical Center in Anaheim, and the hospital were negligent in their treatment of Holly Ramona, now 23. It awarded her father $500,000 in damages. "The case has received national attention because it marks the first time that a court has allowed a therapist to be sued for implanting false memories. It has been at the forefront of debate over recovered memory therapy, the most divisive issue to hit the mental health profession in decades. Gary Ramona, who Holly said repeatedly raped her between the ages of 5 and 8, has been 'totally vindicated' by the decision, the father's attorney, Richard Harrington, said in an interview Friday night. "'They found that the memories that Gary Ramona molested Holly Ramona were false,' Harrington said. "But the jury did not award Gary Ramona the $8 million that he sought in damages and lost wages. Instead the panel granted Ramona $250,000 for wages lost to date and $250,000 for future loses. When the incest allegations surfaced in 1990, Ramona lost his $400,000-a-year job as a vice president for worldwide marketing at Robert Mondavi Winery, and his family fell apart. "'This is a tremendous victory,' Gary Ramona said Friday. 'This verdict means that the jury saw what I've always known: that Holly's supposed memories are the result of defendants' drugs and quackery, not anything I did.' "Gary Ramona, and a cadre of expert witnesses who testified on his behalf during the nearly tow-month trial, contended that [psychotherapist Marche] Isabella implanted the memories in a vulnerable girl's mind and used the hypnotic drug sodium amytal to 'prove' to her that the images were true. "While under the influence of the drug, which [Dr. Richard] Rose administered, Holly Ramona recounted multiple episodes of abuse, although her descriptions were sketchy. Afterward, Isabella reportedly called the young woman's mother and said, 'It's rape.' Dr. Park Elliott Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist hired by Gary Ramona, testified that Isabella's conclusion was an 'outrageous misrepresentation' and that Isabella and Rose failed to follow standards of acceptable therapeutic care'." 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718