Hi Andre, I hear your challenge and accept. Here's some answers for the first few questions plus a bit of explanation for anybody who hasn't looked at amazon, etc.
The Moral Landscape, Sam Harris Harris argues forcefully for the superiority of science over religion as a means of determining morality and understanding the subtle gradations between permanent truths and culturally and historically determined values. Sam Harris’s first book, The End of Faith, ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In the aftermath, Harris discovered that most people—from religious fundamentalists to nonbelieving scientists—agree on one point: science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Indeed, our failure to address questions of meaning and morality through science has now become the most common justification for religious faith. It is also the primary reason why so many secularists and religious moderates feel obligated to "respect" the hardened superstitions of their more devout neighbors. In this explosive new book, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a "moral landscape." Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of "morality"; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible. Bringing a fresh perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong and good and evil, Harris demonstrates that we already know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, moral relativism is simply false—and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And the intrusions of religion into the sphere of human values can be finally repelled: for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Q: Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions? Harris: Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality. Mary: The Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ) as developed by Robert M. Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values and Lila: An Inquiry into Morals has much to say on this subject. Pirsig explains that there are indeed right and wrong answers to moral questions, and that these answers are accessible to everyone. Along with Harris, Pirsig sees that this question cannot and should not be relegated solely to the realm of religion, but, in contrast, Pirsig clearly illustrates that it should not be relegated to the realm of science either. In Pirsig’s metaphysics, there is an alternative perspective upon which to evaluate morality - one based on a perception of reality as itself a moral order rather than the dichotomy of subjects and objects as now viewed by science. Q: Are you saying that science can answer such questions? Harris: Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors—ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can act so as to have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply. Mary: Pirsig agrees with Harris that human well-being is not a random phenomenon and that questions of morality apply, but where Harris asserts that science alone is enough to understand happiness and well-being, Pirsig counters that there is a fundamental flaw to the basic assumptions of both science and religion that preclude the success of either at solving the most basic problems of the human condition. It is the Achilles heel of both science and religion that Pirsig explores. If it is understood that religion has brought us no closer to definitively resolving moral issues, it must also be understood that science too offers no panacea. Addressing the most profound moral questions of humanity requires a perspective more comprehensive than that offered by science or religion. Q: But can’t moral claims be in conflict? Aren’t there many situations in which one person’s happiness means another’s suffering? Harris: There as some circumstances like this, and we call these contests zero-sum. Generally speaking, however, the most important moral occasions are not like this. If we could eliminate war, nuclear proliferation, malaria, chronic hunger, child abuse, etc.—these changes would be good, on balance, for everyone. There are surely neurobiological, psychological, and sociological reasons why this is so—which is to say that science could potentially tell us exactly why a phenomenon like child abuse diminishes human well-being. But we don’t have to wait for science to do this. We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience. Mary: The Metaphysics of Quality says that before we can grasp the universality of morals we need to rethink our concept of reality. The conventional way we perceive the world is as subjects and objects. You are the subject looking out onto a world of external objects that are separate and eternally distinct from yourself. This is known as subject-object metaphysics, or “SOM” for short. This view of reality has a long and distinguished history for us in the West, extending back through Kant and Descartes all the way to Aristotle. It is a view of reality that has served us well, for it has enabled the emergence of science and the scientific method; a clear triumph of logic over the magical religious thinking of the past. We owe much of our present-day advancement to a belief in this basic subject-object duality, and it works. However, this world-view leaves no definitive place for morals. In a world that honors science morality is seen as an opinion, a frill; an area of thought that cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. Morality is seen as either a preference, a habit of mind, or a set of values absorbed along with whatever belief system one was raised with; and, since belief systems vary so widely, there is no fundamental right and wrong other than what each individual chooses to accept. A subject-object world view gives morality little status and no “moral authority” (pardon the pun). The Metaphysics of Quality explains that this kind of thinking is its own sort of trap. It is as fraught with misconceptions as the earliest pantheism was in its own day, and to cling to a belief in a fundamental subject-object division of the world is to limit our thinking to all other possibilities and discount morals as a primary force in the universe. In particular, a subject-object belief system can block us from being able to address moral questions with clarity, since a major part of any subject-object system presupposes that concepts like values, quality, and morals are inherently separate and divorced from material reality. This is unfortunate since it prevents us from seeking any solutions other than those that can be understood in scientific subject-object terms. In short, we are handicapped by our own modern thinking without even knowing it. Yes, moral claims can appear to be in conflict, but only when viewed through a subject-object lens. If you believe yourself to be separate and distinct from everything else, you may be unable to explain why Democracy is more moral than despotism or why what is immoral for one person is equally immoral for yourself. In a SOM world, you have no logical basis for the authority of either of these statements. Best, Mary On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Graig to Andre: > > Nice general explication of the MoQ. Of course, "the devil is in the > details". > > Andre: > Thank you Craig, and agreed, the devil is in the details. I am not > philosophically 'grounded' but try to apply Pirsig's insights to my own > experience and the art of everyday living. I have also attempted to do this > so I can go into discussions with family, friends and colleagues to suggest > the perspective from a 'Quality-centered map of the universe' which > 'provides overwhelming clarity of explanation where all has bee fog before'. > (LILA,p 109) > > The difficulty I keep on coming up against in these discussions is the > fundamental one which, Pirsig recognized at the start of Chapter 8: 'The > idea that the world is composed of nothing but moral value sounds impossible > at first'. > > I would welcome, in fact, I'd be very happy, if someone brought some of > these 'details' into this discussion as criticism and hopefully, > constructive criticism to build on together...in an effort to spread this > perspective persuasively and convincingly. > > > 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 > 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
