All:
A major premise of the MOQ is the existence of a universal moral order, of
good and evil, right and wrong. Understanding this moral order depends on
understanding the constant conflicts between the evolutionary moral levels.
What is right at the biological level (the law of the jungle) is wrong at
the social level (laws of society), etc. Also required is the assumption of
an indefinable moral force called Dynamic Quality.
But when it comes to individuals, universal morality appears to revert to
individual idiosyncrasies. In a word, morality becomes subjective -- a
concept the MOQ otherwise attempts to deny.
"The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality
is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are
different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern
of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence
his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual
value judgments but not complete uniformity." (Pirsig--SODV)
With one stroke Pirsig overthrows his premise of universal morality by
admitting to moral relativity. Further, he implies that to overcome moral
relativity is impossible because "each person has a different static
pattern of life history."
I think moral relativists (the multiculturist, political correctness,
tolerance-above-all crowd) that infest academia would eagerly seize on
Pirsig's acknowledgment of subjective nature of moral judgments to toss the
MOQ out of serious philosophical consideration if indeed they haven't
already done so.
Perhaps this is what our friend Ham has been banging about all along. So to
all true blue MOQites I ask, "Where have I go wrong in this post?"
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/
