Hi dmb, all,
> Steve commented: > What people usually mean by the word "morality" includes the capacity to > empathize, but in the MOQ, morality goes all the way down. Rocks and trees > and atoms are moral beings. Rather than empathy being "the basic foundation > for morality," in the MOQ morality is the basic foundation for everything > (which includes empathy). It seems that you've made an argument _against_ the > MOQ as the best way to think about morality. > > dmb says: > Seems like you're bending over backwards to find something wrong with > empathy, which is kinda funny given the meaning of term "empathy". Steve: No, you misunderstand. I think empathy is the right thing to be talking about to explain morality. What is interesting is that in Pirsig's book on the subject of morality, he _doesn't_ talk about empathy. dmb: Anyway, since the point was made in terms of what various kinds of mammals can do, in terms of what's basic to what "we" do our branch of the evolutionary tree, and in terms that specifically excluded "it", then a reasonable person should conclude that I'm talking about human morality, and not about rocks or atoms. In effect, you're criticizing my comments for being limited to the actual topic, namely empathy, the thing that sociopathic personalities do not have. Steve: I'm not criticizing your comments at all. When people talk about morality they generally want to draw a distinction between behavior motivated by empathy and behavior that is motivated by personal self interest where the former is moral and the latter is prudence. My point is that the MOQ does not allow for this usual distinction (or does not make it in the usual way) because _everything_ is moral behavior in the MOQ. What we have are different types of morality--different sets of moral codes--rather than morality as something distinct from the lack of morality. > Steve continued: > Nevertheless, empathy is what I want people to think of with regard to moral > talk rather than divine command or Natural Law. If you think it has an > important place in the MOQ (if there actually is no contradiction with the > MOQ in what you said above), it seems to me this is an area that needs some > work since it is not something that I recall Pirsig writing about and since > it does not divide neatly into the MOQ levels to talk about moral progress as > expansion of the capacity to empathize with wider and wider circles of > concern. In the modern liberal conception, morality is about better taking > into account the needs of more and more people. In the MOQ as I understand > it, that is not what morality _is_ it is just one goal that certain people > have that either does or does not contribute to evolution of static patterns > toward dynamic quality. > > > dmb says: > Yea, let's get rid of all those advocates of natural law and divine command. > They're drowning out the MOQ and they have to be stopped. Steve: You seem to be getting defensive here for reasons unknown to me. dmb: > But seriously, empathy has tremendous evolutionary advantages and the MOQ is > not opposed to scientific facts such as those produced by primatologists like > Frans DeWall. I mean, we can look at such findings from an MOQ perspective > even if Pirsig did not comment on them specifically. That's just par for the > course, isn't it? That's what thinking is for, no? Steve: Yes, but the point I was making is that you claimed that empathy is the basis for morality. I agree (though I think modifiability can also serve as the starting point for assigning moral responsibility), but the MOQ seems to disagree. In the MOQ, nothing can be the basis for morality since morality is the basis of everything. dmb: > Care is the essential ingredient and it isn't reaching at all to say that > empathy is the sort of care we extend to each other. The motorcycle repairman > has to care in relation to the bike. The freshman writing her essay has to > care about quality in that context. This is JUST as true when it comes to > dealing with people, if not MORE so. In Lila he says of his character, that > the only moral thing he did on the whole trip was to say something positive > about Lila to Rigel. "Yea, she has quality," he said. And it doesn't take > much reading between the lines to see that he can truly empathize with her > insanity, he defends her right to be insane for a while and tells us that the > best thing to do would just let her go through it in peace, someplace quite. Steve: True, but Pirsig did not explicate a place for empathy in the MOQ. It is not a central term in his philosophical system. dmb: > I can't even imagine how the MOQ's moral vision could be incompatible with > human empathy. It may be awkward to push the concept all the way down to > atoms but it's so basic that even rats exhibit some empathy and a distaste > for cruelty. Steve: It would be more than awkward to push the concept down to atoms, it would be false. Atoms clearly to not have the capacity to put themselves in the shoes of others. dmb: Chimps are very sophisticated about it and small children are already experts. It is easy to justify intellectually and all the great spiritual leaders have held it as centrally important. It reaches across and transcends the levels. Do unto others. It's the golden rule wherever you go. Can you think of any GOOD reason why the MOQ would be inconsistent with that? I can't. Steve: What is interesting to me once again is that despite the fact that "all the great spiritual leaders have held it as centrally important" in discussing morality, Pirsig does not talk about empathy, compassion, and love to explain morality. 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
