Hi Jon and all:
When discussing the MoQ with unbelievers, I always get the same reaction
you described in your June 10 post. In the course of many such debates I’ve
learned that underneath all their arguments is an unspoken assumption from
which, logically, they cannot escape. By simply pointing out what that
assumption is, I make the case for reality being moral.
Winning them over to the MoQ, of course, requires (as other have rightly
suggested) their reading ZAMM and Lila. But at least they go away from a
discussion with me knowing that they’re not dealing with some New Age nut
case--a small victory perhaps, but nevertheless soul-satisfying.
The assumption that they cannot deny is the moral value of truth. So, our
discussions go something like the following: (In each example I’m Q.)
Q. Do you believe what you say is true?
A. Of course.
Q. Is it moral to tell the truth?
A. In most cases, yes.
Q. How about in your case, right now?
A. Yes
Q. So what you say is moral?
A. Well, I … (Perplexed)
Q. Do you think you’re right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it good to be right?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Well, is it bad to be right?
A. No
Q. Does good or bad pertain to morals?
A. I guess so … (Baffled)
Q. I say a dog is pattern of moral values.
A. What? You’re nuts.
Q. Ever seen a dog that didn’t want to live?
A. No.
Q. Is living better than dying?
A. Sure, but …(Puzzled)
Q. Does science seek the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that good?
A. Yes.
Q. Does science explain why it’s good?
A. I dunno … (Wondering)
Of course, these are overly simple examples. But, they serve to make the
point. Your friendly opponent cannot deny reality is moral without making
moral judgments as to truth, rightness, betterness, or goodness. Confronted
with that fact, she’s hard pressed to assert that reality is valueless since
she’s part of reality she denies.
(Incidentally, when asked to define morality I answer, “Morality is what’s
good, right, true or beautiful.” Usually, people agree with that definition. To
explain why those values are sometimes different in different cultures, and
indeed among individuals, I use Pirsig’s explanation of different life
experiences.)
So in MoQ discussions I try to keep in mind that every assertion by my
opponent is a moral judgment on his part. By simply pointing out that fact
every time he opens his mouth, he either gets the point or tries to get in the
last word by saying something negative about my ancestry or whatever.
To which I reply, “Another moral judgment.” Which I can keep doing, ad
infinitum.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
