Krimel & Ham,
[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.
> [Krimel]:
> > 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.
[Ham]
> 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.
I conclude from your answers that morality is relative to cultures and thus
there is nothing inherently or universally wrong with burning babies for
amusement or eating your enemies so long as those behaviors are cultural
practices.
Frankly, I'm flabbergasted that this is your position. If it isn't I hope
you will correct me and explain how my conclusion is mistaken.
[Ham]
> 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.
I hate to disappoint you, Ham, but your view of my (and Pirsig's) view is
wrong. The laws of physics and the laws of the jungle are inimical to human
life, that is, not good at all. Society evolved for the specific purpose of
protecting humans from the evils of the lower levels, whether it be
protection from the elements or tigers. The universe is moral in the sense
that it is evolving towards betterness, that is, toward self-conciousness
and ability to understand itself. Yes, we are now the principle players
because the moral force has made us the culmination of betterness so far.
We have a way to go for sure, but the very fact we are conversing in this
manner over a global network that didn't exist ten years ago shows the
direction the universe, through us, is moving.
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/
