Hi Steve, On 18 Oct 2010 at 9:10, Steven Peterson wrote:
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 Yes, but as you know, Pirsig applies that basic premise beyond human affairs. Big difference. 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. Platt But Pirsig greatly expands the playing field, and thus, our moral understanding. Steve 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 Except the MOQ acknowledges religious experience in a way that I doubt Harris ever dreamed of: "The Metaphysics of Quality identifies religious mysticism with Dynamic Quality. It says the subject-object people are almost right when they identify religious mysticism with insanity. The two are almost the same. Both lunatics and mystics have freed themselves from the conventional static intellectual patterns of their culture. The only difference is that the lunatic has shifted over to a private static pattern of his own, whereas the mystic has abandoned all static patterns in favor of pure Dynamic Quality." (Lila, 30) Another example of Pirsig's broader moral understanding. 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. Platt But from the MOQ we learn about the moral role that the police and soldiers play in defending society from biological terrorists. It's not too big a jump from that moral understanding to surmise that it's OK for science to develop potential weapons. The overall impression I get from what you've told me about Harris' morality is a barely disguised argument for "social justice." But, I could be wrong. 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/md/archives.html
