Hi Steve: > >> Steve: > >> I brought up the ethics of reciprocity because I could not think of > >> what else you could be thinking of in saying that Christian morality > >> may be intellectual. If you don't see the Golden Rule as rational, > what > >> else about Christian morality could be thought of as intellectual? > > Platt: > > Well, that's the question isn't it? Secular humanists appear to adopt > many > > Christian ideals in their Godless worldview such as caring, sharing, > > compassion, toleration, etc. They claim to arrive at their ethical > values > > rationally if not scientifically, i.e., intellectually. But as we > know, > > Pirsig takes a rather dim view of an SOM-based ethics. > > Steve: > You seem to be looking for a metaphysical foundation for these > virtues. What does the MOQ suggest about the possibility of finding > such a foundation within intellect whether based on SOM or the MOQ? > Aren't these ideals apreciated or not like paintings in a gallery > rather than with some basis in Truth as an essence?
"Virtue" or goodness is what the MOQ is all about, providing us with a metaphysical basis for assessing virtue claims. As you know, the MOQ sets forth a guide to judging some concepts as better than others on the basis of evolutionary superiority. "It is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a society to destroy an idea." (Lila, 22). > Who decides what is good in the Good Book? If you don't already know > that caring, sharing, compassion, toleration, etc are good, do you > really think that one would figure that out by reading the Bible? If one believes that Jesus is God and believes that God speaks the Truth, then reading in the Bible about what Jesus said about what is good will have an influence. > >> Steve: > >> I think you'd have a hard time finding any data supporting the > >> hypothesis that believers are better behaved than atheists even by > >> believer's moral standards regarding crime, teenage pregnancy, child > >> molestation, etc. In fact, countries that are the most atheistic tend > >> to have the lowest crime rates, highest literacy rates, least > poverty, > >> etc. > > Platt: > > I simply refer to communism, a secular tyranny which since the > > Enlightenment has proved itself by far the most lethal, oppressive, > > dehumanizing force on earth. > > Steve: > Communism has been oppressive. Are you suggesting that if Communism > has claimed to be true based on a divine inspriration, it would have > been less so? Not at all. I'm suggesting being an atheist is no assurance that one is good, like some here seem to infer. Further, since 1900, countries with a Christian heritage have been anti-totalitarian for the most part, defeating Nazism and resisting communism. I'm sure you agree that has been good. > Steve: > >> It looks like teaching children to care about other people can work > at > >> least as well as teaching kids to fear invisible gods. > > Platt: > > Yes, you're obviously right about that. But "caring about other people" > is > > Christian doctrine is it not? > > Steve: > Are we to believe that no one had any inclination toward caring about > other people prior to the birth of Jesus of Nazareth? No. I'm sure early hominids cared for members of their own tribes But when it came to members of other tribes, suspicion and wariness was probably the rule more often than not. > You seem to be asking, "where does the idea that we should care about > others come from?" In the MOQ, is the answer, the Church or Quality? The answer in the MOQ comes from MOQ intellect recognizing the value of caring for others as a beneficial social pattern, helping society stave off biological invasions. Best, 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/
