Jorge wrote on Jan.13: > " Pirsig is quite right when he says that Science > is unconcerned with social > > values and morals. What I fail to see is what's so > bad about it. I am quite happy > > that present day scientists recognize that > limitation. Our civilization paid a dire > > price when, in the past, Science presumed to have > answers for everything, > > including even the existence of God and of the soul. > Just to recall a couple: > > Aryan race supremacy and the morality that sprung > from it, had a > > (pseudo)scientific basis, so did the notion that men > are more intelligent than > > women. In my opinion, the farther we keep Science > away from morality, or Art or > > Religion, the better for all concerned. > > > > I don't think that this is an attitude peculiar > to scientists. Are artists > > uncomfortable about Art having nothing to say about > morality or about the creation > > of the universe? Are truly religious people > uncomfortable because their religion > > is unconcerned about unveiling the secrets of the > atom?. This does not mean in the > > least that scientists or artists are are unmoral, > not even amoral, they are as > > concerned about right and wrong as the man next > door; perhaps, more perplexed, > > but as concerned." > ======= > > On which Platt commented on Jan 14: > > I may be wrong but aren't you assuming in the above > comments that morality is > about human behavior in a social setting? Pirsig's > whole point is that > morality extends far beyond just it's familiar social > context into all aspects > of experience. So an artist is being moral in choosing > what note to place next > is his composition, and a scientist is being being > moral in choosing > to study the atom rather than the sex life of queen > bees. In other words, the > whole world consists of a jillion decisions of this > being better than that, from > the crowing of a rooster to getting out of bed in the > morning -- all moral > decisions. These have led to the creation of thousands > of static moral patterns > that stay the same year after year, especially at the > inorganic and biological > levels. Or so says the MOQ as I understand it. > > ====== > > My comments on Platt's digest above: > > > Not quite sure but I'd answer: Yes, I am assuming > that morality is about human behavior in a social > setting". My "not quite sure" stems from what I said > in my first digest of our exchange of views: Mine is > an acute case of Moral Perplexity and, if there's > something in this world I'm quite unsure of, it is > Morality. So, instead of putting forward my point of > view, I'd like to argue on the lines of J.M. Brennan, > a British philosopher, whose writings on Morals make > sense to me. > > Suppose I want to buy me a new bike but I'm not > sure if I should. I may be not sure if I should buy it > because I may think that my old bike could last some > more years and, also, because "they don't make bikes > as good in these days" . Since I am not sure, I'd > ask for advice, in this case, from a friend who knows > a lot about bikes. This doubt or dilemma of mine is > what Brennan calls a 'technical' question and, as such > will be answered by my friend in strictly technical > terms. Nothing at all to do with morality.
>From how I interpret the MOQ I would argue that your decision to consult your friend for technical advice was a moral decision. For you it was better to do that than to decide the issue by yourself. You valued your friend's advice, so you asked for it. > It could be though that I'm not sure about > buying a new bike because there's a number of poor > children in my street that cannot afford even an old > one. May be, instead of self-satisfying my needs, I > could use the money for buying some old bikes for some > of those children? Faced with this dilemma I wouldn't > seek advice from the said friend; I would ask the > local priest for advice or, if I don't trust priests, > go to the local library and seek guidance from the > various treatises on Ethics and Morality shelved > there. This because now it's not a technical question > but a moral one; moral, because I think that my buying > or not buying may affect the welfare or wellbeing of > others than me. Again following the MOQ, I would argue that your decision to seek guidance regarding how best to spend your money is a moral decision. You value doing something considered morally commendable, i.e. you believe it would be better to make your decision on the basis of how your decision might affect others rather than on technical terms. (I might point out if you had decided to buy a new bike you would have been benefiting any number of people including the retailer and the manufacturer and their employees.) > Who decides, in the bike example, whether my > doubts are of a technical or a moral character? Only > me; if I don't put forward a moral question there's no > moral dilemma. The example of the bike is rather > innocuous because society at large might not be much > concerned about my indulging in a new bike or not. > But, although innocuous, it is of the same character > of your example about a scientist doubtful about > whether to investigate the atom or the sex life of > bees. As long as she doesn't ask herself a moral > question there's no moral dilemma involved. I would submit that all questions concerning one's behavior are moral questions. Some, of course, have greater significance that others. But one is never sure of the significance, sometimes until many years have passed. > But what about a scientist trying to decide > whether or not to pursue her research on some lethal > microorganism, knowing quite well that her findings > may be used for biological warfare? Even if she > doesn't pose herself a moral question and only cares > about her salary, the society in which she lives may > well pose moral questions about her research. > In the case of an individual asking herself a > moral question or, if not asking, when the society > poses that question to her, it looks to me that both > look like "a problem of individual behavior in a > social setting". I hope, Platt, that this answers your > question about my view on morals. Since all human behavior occurs in a social setting your statement is undeniable. But in the MOQ, all individual behavior is considered moral including the behavior of individual atoms and ants, although more static and predictable than the behavior of people. J. M. Brennan, however, is content to keep morals penned up in the human social context. You really can't blame him; everybody does the same it seems, except Pirsig. > The point I've been trying to stress though in > former digests is that the argument between > alternative > human actions and the norms of the social setting is > not within the area of concern of Science. Our > scientist could argue that her research is vital for > the understanding the effect of tittivuluesterase, the > social setting may counter-argue that biological > weapons are not fair play in war. Science as such is > impotent faced with this argument, it has no tools or > methods for contrasting the value of further knowledge > on enzymes with the value of human lives or war > ethics. What "tools" or "methods" do you think are available for contrasting such values? Pirsig argues that ". . . in this culture there aren't any fundamental meanings of morality. There are only old traditional social and religious meanings and these don't have any intellectual base. They're just traditions." (Lila, 7) Since morals have no intellectual base, we have the scourge of multiculturism -- the notion that what is right and what is wrong depends on the society of which one happens to be a part. Thus, if some cultures believe there is nothing wrong in slaughtering others for their religious beliefs, who are we to judge, much less interfere? > As I've been saying in my later Posts the > farther we keep Science away from Morality, the better > for all of us. And I also have been saying that a > Science unconcerned with morals does not imply that > scientists, as human beings, should be unconcerned. It > is within this context that I'm rather uneasy with > Platt's "jillion of decisions about this being better > than that, being all moral decisions" . This because, > if "technical decisions" in Brennan's sense, that is > decisions about artistic, medical, engineering issues, > are all moral decisions, morality may be lost in the > struggle of conflicting values. IMHO, "this being > better than that" cannot be the sole guideline for > moral judgments. What of an engineer claiming that > building a pipeline through some particular route "is > better than" building it through another even if "the > better" route traverses a wildlife reserve? What of an > economist claiming that private prisons are "better > than" State ones, because they are cheaper to run? On what basis would you judge the engineer and the economist to be immoral? > With all the shortcomings of the social setting's > pronouncing of moral judgments, I'd rather leave them > there than in the hands of individuals of the various > professions whose interests are perforce narrower than > those of the society at large. We have seen historically that the interests of society at large can go horribly askew in terms of human suffering. I would prefer to leave moral judgments in the hands of individuals who must persuade others of the morality of their decisions (when others are affected) in the free marketplace of ideas. > It may look a bit like > a slogan but I can't resist it : "Thinking that > everything is moral may well lead to think that > nothing is unmoral". Hence my uneasiness about using > "this being better than that" as a supreme criterion > for distinguishing good from evil. Then what "supreme criterion" would you suggest other than tradition or religion? What appeals to me about Pirsig's metaphysics is his attempt to deal with morals on the basis of reason rather than a traditional or religious basis which has led to all sorts of conflicts and bloodshed, among the most contentious being the fight for dominance of the individual vs. the collective. Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
