> > Ron: > > You Define moral as morality equals reality. I agree with your > > definition
> Platt: > Morality equals reality is Pirsig's definition, not mine. I happen to > agree. > Ron: > > And as per that definition I embrace and own Pirsigs "moral" levels. So do I. > Platt: > I presume that means you accept the superiority of the higher moral > levels > over the lower, as Pirsig says. > Ron: > Per the definition above, yes. Good. Me, too. > > Ron prev: > > 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. > > Platt: > 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?" > > Ron: > Basically yes. Ham would call it individual value awareness. Here we part company. The existence (reality) of a crocodile in a swamp is not a matter of my personal opinion. It will exist whether I think about it or not. > Ron Prev: > > 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. > > Platt: > He is saying it's better to kill a germ than to be killed by one. Don't you > agree? > > Ron: > Well yea, but that's my personal view point. That germ would say that it > was better for me to live too since my death would ensure its own, thus the > struggle that needs to exist. Wouldn't you say your personal viewpoint is better than the germ's? I would. > By killing that germ the doctor may > unwittingly doom mankind, killing Something he needs to survive. I doubt if mankind's continued existence depends on the death of one germ. If that was the case, wouldn't we have all been killed off long ago? > The > struggle promotes change. The struggle Of the doctor and the germ is what's > moral. What's moral is the doctor to kill the germ rather than vice versa. I don't see the struggle itself as moral, only the outcome. > If all doctors killed all germs would morality be served? Or would > morality cease to exist? Evolution halted because the struggle Is no more. There are germs beneficial to human life and germs that kill human life. So yes, to kill ALL germs would not be a good idea. 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/
