Hi Platt,
> Steve > Consider what Harris calls, The Bad Life: > "You are a young widow who has lived her entire life in the midst of > civil war. Today, your seven-year-old daughter was raped and > dismembered before your eyes. Worse still, the perpetrator was your > fourteen-year-old son, who was goaded to this evil at the point of a > machete by a press gang of drug-addled soldiers. You are now running > barefoot through the jungle with killers in pursuit. While this is the > worst day of your life, it is not entirely out of character with the > other days of your life: since the moment you were born, your world > has been a theater of cruelty and violence. You have never learned to > read, taken a hot shower, or traveled beyond the green hell of the > jungle. Even the luckiest people you have known have experienced > little more than an occasional respite from chronic hunger, fear, > apathy, and confusion. Unfortunately, you´ve been very unlucky, even > by these bleak standards. Your life has been one long emergency, and > now it is nearly over. > > Now consider what Harris calls, The Good Life: > "You are married to the most loving, intelligent, and charismatic > person you have ever met. Both of you have careers that are > intellectually stimulating and financially rewarding. For decades, > your wealth and social connections have allowed you to devote yourself > to activities that bring you immense personal satisfaction. One of > your greatest sources of happiness has been to find creative ways to > help people who have not had your good fortune in life. In fact, you > have just won a billion-dollar grant to benefit children in the > developing world. If asked, you would say that you could not imagine > how your time on earth could be better spent. Due to a combination of > good genes and optimal circumstances, you and your closest friends and > family will live very long, healthy lives, untouched by crime, sudden > bereavements, and their misfortunes." > > Now his idea of the good life might not be the same as yours. But > there ought to be no question that The Good Life is better than The > Bad Life. Anyone who can not see this difference is just as > incompetent to participate in an intelligent discussion of morality as > someone who can't pass Algebra I would be to a discussion of physics. > Acknowledgment of the difference between The Good Life and The Bad > Life is all we need to agree about to understand that science can have > something to say about at least some moral questions since the > conditions that determine the human experiences associated with the > good life as compared to the bad life are open to scientific study. Platt: > I agree that the Good life is better than the Bad life. That's true by > definition. Steve: It's not meant to be true by definition. It's true because life G is better than life B. The basis of morality for Harris is that same as that of Pirsig: some things are better than others. > Platt > An alternate basis for morality, other than "concern for the well-being of > conscious creatures (which is right our of the Christian handbook only > expressed more colorfully and succinctly as "Love thy neighbor as thyself") is > Pirsig's universal moral order described in his MOQ. Steve: The basis of Pirsig's moral order is that some things are better than others. The evolutionary hierarchy of value patterns is supposed to help us understand the conflicts between types of value patterns and not, as you well know, to solve every moral condundrum. As for whether or not studying the conditions that best foster well-being, if such a study happens to confirm some Christian values as worth valuing so much the better for Christian values, but it is the rational inquiry into values that stands in judgment of Christianity rather than the other way around. The MOQ sees the situation in the same way. Platt: > But we go round and round. From what you've told me about Harris, his morality > seems pretty much to consist of tried and true bromides. The question I have > for Harris is, "Should science help develop potential weapons? If not, what > enforcement mechanism would he suggest? Does he address those issues? Steve: Like the MOQ and Lila, Harris's book is not an ethical system that tells you what is right and wrong in every situation. Best, Steve 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/md/archives.html
