Hi Ham, > > [Platt] > > Pirsig proposes a universal moral order. Postmodernists > > propose moral relativism. > > [Ian] > > Both true, a universal moral "order" that "orders" things according to > > their "relative" morality in layers. > > > > A far cry from postmodernism where it's all relative. > > Yes, Platt, but on page p.317 of LILA, Pirsig says: > > "Morals have no objective reality. You can look through a microscope or > telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of your life and you will never find > a single moral. There aren't any there. They are all in your head."
Check the context, Ham. Pirsig makes it clear that this is the perspective of subject-object science. It is NOT the perspective of the MOQ.. > If morals are all in my head, morality is what is good for me. In other > words, it's relative to the observing subject. By what ontological > principle, then,.does the author posit morality as the order of the > universe? Is he saying that individuals are programmed by the universe to > prefer certain values? If so, we are predetermined (by nature or genetics) > to live out our lives in a prescribed way, which means man is not a free > agent. > Or, is he saying that Reality, as Quality, has a moral conscience of > its own that determines the course of evolution? This would suggest a > teleological principle akin to Divine Authority. In either case, individual > behavior is made subordinate to universal law, karma, or a "higher source". As you know that there are four moral levels in the MOQ, each having different effects on man. The moral value of sitting on a hot stove is completely different from the moral value of free speech. > I'm no postmodernist, either, but I happen to be a moral relativist. As a > believer in an absolute primary source, I find myself in the awkward > position of having to defend moral relativity against objectivists who are > holding out for a "Higher Authority". I call your attention to these > paragraphs from Steve Edington's "Confessions of a Moral Relativist". > (Edington is a Unitarian minister.) > > "The assumption being made about morality and codes of moral behavior here > is that they are ultimately rooted in some source beyond human experience or > human construction. It could be either in a Deity, however conceived; or in > what our Enlightenment ancestors-Thomas Jefferson, for example-called > 'Natural Law.' > > "This is a common, and quite understandable, assumption. What parent, for > example, has not said, at some point of exasperation, to his or her child > after running out of offering explanations for a parental command: "Because > I said so, and that's all the reason you need!" ...There may be debate over > just who or what this "I" is that is "saying so" but the idea that Morality > (with a capital 'M') ultimately derives from a fixed source that is beyond > us is a commonly held one. And there are those who firmly hold that to > question, or to deviate from, such an idea is to teeter on the precipice of > a very dangerous chasm called 'moral relativism'. > > "Well, teetering or not, I'd like to make the case, the positive case, for > moral relativism today, with my underlying point being that it is really the > only kind of morality there is. A related point is that it is the reality > of moral relativism that calls us, as human beings, to moral responsibility > and moral decision making. > > "...Since my concept of God is really that of a Life Force or of a Power > within Ourselves similar to what Ralph Waldo Emerson called the 'Spark of > the Divine' he felt resided in the souls of all people, then I believe we > have this power within ourselves to draw upon as we make our moral choices > and as we take responsibility for them." As you know, Edington's views of morality are NOT the same as Pirsig's. > My point, of course, is that "moral decision making" is precisely what human > beings are put on earth to do. My "evidence" is that man is the only > creature endowed with the value-sensibility to discriminate good from bad in > a moral context. In other words, man has the power of his own authority, > which is why I object to Morality or Value preferences being attributed to a > higher authority. > > I submit that if the primary source--whether it be God, DQ or Essence--were > to control the conduct of mankind or grant him "special favors", there could > be no such thing as an autonomous agent, which in my philosophy is the > 'raison d'être' and core morality of man's existence. Do you and Edington find the Holocaust immoral? If so, on what basis is your "value-sensibility" superior to Hitler's? 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/
