Hi Platt -- > Since "man's sense of values" varies from culture to culture, it seems to > you that morality is relative. Thus a society that approves of burning > babies for amusement or eating their enemies is morally fine and dandy. > > I'm sure you don't really believe that, but on what premise or premises > do you base a "rational" morality? Pirsig has laid out his in the MOQ.. > I would love to see yours.
Platt, I've spelled out my views of morality both here and in my book, where I give examples of moral conduct in a social context. I also think Krimel's latest post is quite explicit on the subject. [Krimel]: > Just as consciousness emerges from biological system so to can morality. > It does not need to be built into the framework of the universe itself to > command our attention. ... > A glaring example would be how different cultures express reverence > for the dead. In some cultures the dead are buried. in others they may > be eaten. But societies are expressing respect for the dead but my find > the specific practices mutually disgusting. ... > Morality in terms of cultural practice is relative to the culture that > upholds it. It serves the needs of the people that practice it. > It expresses their shared values. > Such morality does not need to be a property of TiTs or the universe > as a whole. But this does not deny that morals are vital to human culture. In other words, Morality is a relative precept that expresses the values of a given culture or society. Morality is the basis of human civilization. It serves as the guiding principle whereby individuals may live and work collectively, without feeling that they are being taken advantage of or threatened by their neighbors. Morality is a fortuitous marriage of two attributes that are unique to human beings: Reason and Value-sensibility. Rational self-directed value is also man's solution to surviving in an amoral universe. A perfectly moral universe would have no need to evolve and no role for a value-sensible creature. It would stand on its own merits, like a shining star in the heavens, as a static symbol of perfection. Clearly this is not the universe we experience, as Pirsig's clash of levels demonstrates. Life is a struggle for survival in a constantly shifting environment that can suddenly erupt in earthquakes, floods, plagues, asteroidal collisions, and life-threatening climactic changes. Tyrants and fanatics can rise up to destroy peaceful nations, and malicious people can make life unsafe in any society. In short, we do not live in a moral universe. It is not directed by an intellectual or esthetic power. I know that troubles you, Platt, because you view the physical world as a 'Mother Earth' that enfolds its creatures in perfect goodness. In a curiously religious way, reinforced by Pirsig's pronouncements, you equate the universe with its Creator. This view is consoling in that it "justifies" existence by making it appear to be eminently fair, logical, and beneficial to all of its constituents --both living and inanimate. But existence has a metaphysical agenda that is far more significant than a passing world of appearances. It casts individuated value agents--human beings like you and me--as its principle players. Once we face the truth of our existential condition, it will become obvious that we have to look beyond this self/other dichotomy for the ultimate source of existence. For all his emphasis on the levels hierarchy, with DQ as its fundamental reality, Pirsig has not taken this insightful step. He has deliberately avoided positing a transcendent source, choosing instead to equate reality with the objective world of finite patterns and leaving it for Intellect to resolve the moral enigma. The MoQ is a euphemistic solution rather than a metaphysical thesis. What I am offering is an ontology that acknowledges S/O experience as a necessary mode of Absolute Perfection, with relational Value as its manifested essence. This puts man at the focal center of existence and makes his "being in the world" a function of his value sensibility. By identifying with the values we experience as our conditional reality, we individually affirm the unconditional Essence from which we were separated at creation. I submit that this ontology not only encompasses morality but also provides a rational purpose for the life experience. Essentially yours, Ham 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/
