Mornin' Ham, Apparently, you misinterpreted or have lost sight of the point I was making > to Joe Maurer, which is that man invents morality rather than the other way > around.
But that point is the point with which I disagree. It makes more sense that the moral structure of the cosmos produces man, who retains recognition in his being of this intrinsic morality. Read Arlo's post on abduction and synthesize it with Lanza's theory of Biocentrism and that's about as good as I can see for a definition of good. The distinction is between morality and freedom. You say you couldn't have freedom if there was intrinsic morality and I say you couldn't have freedom UNLESS there was intrinsic morality. > The individual IS FREE because he is not bound by a universe that is > intrinsically moral. If morality were universal, human beings would > necessarily behave according to the laws of nature and genetic programming. > The exercise of free choice is made possible by man's value sensibility and > reasoning. That he is uniquely endowed with these faculties suggests that > man's role in existence is that of choice-maker. Among his choices are ways > to establish a moral society. > > So, what is your argument? > > Stated above. Additionally I don't understand why you think an intrinsic morality forces morality, anymore than intrinsic gravity forces one big black hole. Plainly gravity is intrinsic; plainly the planets and stars spin around each other and don't "obey" the gravitational pull. But I'd like to look a little more at freedom and morality and compare these two concepts from different perspectives. You use the word "because" - which is always problematic for me, as I don't see causation as fundamental. Freedom and morality seems to me to be one of those mutually arising, mutually interdependent terms - you can't have choice unless you have Quality; you can't have Quality if you don't have choice. Furthermore, if we observe the levels of existence as Pirsigians postulate, we see a clear continuum of freedom of choice from the inorganic rocks to the philosophically dancing chemistry prof. Just because man has the most choice, doesn't mean that nothing else has any - it's a continuum, not a sharp dividing line. If sharp dividing lines between man and the cosmos exist, then SOM reigns. But then, I have a feeling you know that and are just baiting me and us all. So there's my nibble. Not biting, however. Idealistically yours, John > --Ham > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > _ _ _ _ _ > > > On Monday, 11/30/09, 10:21 AM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Ham sez: >>> >>>> >>>> "If morality were intrinsic to the universe, as you seem to believe, >>>> you would have no choice but to 'go with the flow'." >>>> >>>> That's like saying if gravity were intrinsic to the universe I wouldn't >>>> have >>>> any choice but to fall down. >>>> >>>> >>> Exactly! >>> >>> --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/ > 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/
