Hi Steve,
[Platt]
> >In fact, I
> >judge intellectual quality by its aesthetic truth more than its
> >reasonableness.
>
> Steve:
> I see intellectual quality as an aesthetic judgment as well.
Glad we agree. It was the aesthetic quality of the MOQ that attracted me to
it more than its rationale. I have seen reason "spin" truth too much to put
a lot of faith in it. (I realize we use the term "faith" differently.)
> Platt:
> >Beauty is trans-rational. It needs no explanation. It explains itself. The
> >key to its usefulness and appeal is it's trans-rational communication of
> >Quality.
>
> Steve:
> Sam Harris agrees that we don't have reasons for all of our beliefs. Our
> most basic beliefs like 2+2=4 are not taught by math books, we have to know
> that before we open the book. He uses the term intuition to describe these
> sorts of beliefs.
Yes, we intuit that a giraffe is not a rabbit.
> That is very different, however, than saying that our beliefs don't have to
> be reasonable. Of course we should want our beliefs to have intellectual
> quality.
I think it's reasonable to believe that not all who have faith in God have
low quality intellects or are immoral, and vice-versa.
[Platt]
> >P.S. The response to your idea that the MOQ can be called a "Science of
> >Morals" has been less than deafening.
>
> Steve:
> This was your suggestion. I wouldn't call it that myself, I just said
> responded that Pirsig has already done so when he said that it is
> scientifically moral for a doctor to kill germs. I personally don't like it
> when people extend the term science to apply to any rational consideration.
> the MOQ is certainly a rational approach to ethics.
Here's the exchange where I thought you answered "yes" to my question:
> Platt:
> >Of course, we can always adopt new meanings for a word like science. After
> >all, Pirsig has liberated the word "morals" from human social behavior.
> >Should we call the MOQ "A Science of Morals?"
>
> Steve:
> Pirsig already did this when he said that it is scientifically moral for a
> doctor to kill a germ.
Are you suggesting now that Pirsig was perhaps putting it too strongly to
apply the term "scientifically" to a moral decision? I think he was.
Science involves precise measurements. I don't know how you measure a moral
decision, much less happiness or suffering..
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/
