> Platt: > Here is where I lose you. Many values are static. Thus we have the > four moral levels that makes it more moral for a doctor to kill a germ > than > a germ to kill a doctor. > > Ron: > What does "more moral" mean? If: > "morality equals reality" ?
In means that some aspects of reality are more moral than others. > Ron quotes Platt again: > > > Quality equals reality. Quality equals morality. Ergo, reality > > > equals morality. > > Ron prev: > > What defines superiority differs by every act of value from atoms to > > thoughts. > > Platt: > Yes, but as above, we see a static pattern of values -- from atoms to > thoughts with thoughts being morally superior to atoms. > > Ron: > If Morality equals reality, by saying > Something is more moral you are in effect stating > That it is more real. Or did I misquote you? > " reality > > equals morality." I don't follow you. How can something be more real than reality? Within reality, some things can be more moral than others, like a doctor vs. a germ. > Ron quotes Platt: > " I don't see how you can define anything without reference to something > else." > > Ron: > It seems quite clear you have no way of defining what morality is Less > running it in circular logic per your opinion of it. This is my point. > This goes for myself as well. Not at all clear to me. How do you define anything without it being your opinion? Are you saying in effect, "Reality is personal opinion?" > So what the heck does Pirsig mean when he says doctors are more moral > Than germs? Does he mean that doctors are more real to us than germs? > More valuable to us than germs? It's interesting when you really look at it > And follow the logic. He is saying it's better to kill a germ than to be killed by one. Don't you agree? 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/
