Hi Platt, Roger and all
Apologies for taking so long to reply.
> Not to beat this into the ground but I wonder what limits, if any, one
> places on the holistic �overall environment� view. Should one look all the
> way back to the beginning of time and expand outward to include all of
> space to the ends of the universe?
If you were omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent then this may be the way to go,
but practically you have to remain within the limits of what can reasonably be related
to whatever activity it is you are involved in.
> I can see in one sense that we're all made of stardust and are connected
> to everything else that exists. But, at what point in determining good or
> evil does one draw the line?
How long is a piece of string? In my post of 20th January I mentioned Justice and
Punishment. When punishment is meted out to someone convicted of a crime
mitigating circumstances are generally taken into account. That your granny stubbed
her toe and swore at your mother, who then suffered a mild trauma which was passed
on to you would be of less importance than your being raped and abused as a child if
you were found guilty of child-abuse. Your question is to assess at what point you
draw the line when determining if an act is good or evil which implies that there are
but
two possibilities and that each act or event must be one or the other. This is not
the
case and is a good basis for refuting a system which promotes absolute positions.
Any act or event seen in the context of other acts or events will also be seen to
exert a
varying amount of influence on those events. The degree of that influence varies
according to the relevance those events have with respect to the overall system being
considered. It is quite easy to show that a decision or act undertaken for economic
purposes can exert an influence on global weather patterns. But does this make the
economic decision an act of Evil or Good in terms of the environmental effects. The
economic decision will be seen as one of a number of events that affect global weather
patterns and not a one to one mapping. The events of the Second World War and the
part Hitler played in them are often seen as a justification for proposing that Hitler
should have been killed at an early age. What is rarely mentioned is the influence of
the Treaty of Versailles on the events that enabled Hitler to gain power. Was the
Treaty of Versailles a force for Good or Evil and what other factors played a part in
Hitlers rise to power. It is meaningless to ask at what point in determining Good or
Evil
does one draw a line. The best that can be done in all but the most simplistic or
extreme cases is assess the degree to which events affect each other.
> Seems to me you have to put a boundary around holism somehow.
> Otherwise, it just means pretty much whatever you want it to mean to
> include whatever you want to include. If we can't agree on the boundaries,
> then it seems to me we will always end up in relativity land where your
> ideas about good and evil are just as good or bad as mine.
Any boundary imposed would be arbitrary. This doesn't mean relative positions are not
valid, just that they are not the whole story. A purely holistic system is an ideal
which,
I believe provides for greater scope and understanding than a relativistic system.
Where Value judgements appear to contain contradictions try a contextual approach.
> Horse, I'm all in favor of discussing a "holistic moral system with
> Quality as the base.� As you know, I�m a great Pirsig fan. I just need to
> get a good handle on what "holistic" means first, at least as you see it
> in connection with the MoQ. I don't think Pirsig ever used the term, so I
> must turn to you for help. Thanks.
I agree that Pirsig doesn't use the term 'holistic' but I think that holism is
implicit in his
explanation of the MOQ. In considering moral judgements one cannot simply look at
immediately preceding events or consider only one aspect of a situation. Intellectual
Value is not a direct result of inorganic value. Intellectual value emerges from
social
value, which emerges from biological value which emerges from inorganic value. In
considering Intellectual value it is necessary to consider the part played by the
other
'static' levels. Additionally, with the Static/Dynamic conflict, value at all of the
levels
need to be seen in the context of DQ. How much more holistic can it get. A moral
system based upon the MOQ cannot simply consider the effects of an event at a
particular level but needs to consider the effects at other levels. Ken's example of a
meteor striking the Earth comes to mind. Considered purely at an inorganic level this
event is moral, but when seen in the context of it's affect on biology, society and
intellect it is not so simple. Consider the comet which is supposed to have wiped out
the dinosaurs and much of the then existing land-based life on the planet. Current
theory seems to be that in wiping out most of the larger land-based creatures the
opportunity arose for mammals to develop which eventually led to the appearance of
homo-sapiens and intellect. Was the comet striking the earth a Good or an Evil event?
Is the existence of homo-sapiens a Good or Evil outcome? It all depends upon the
context in which the question is asked and the judgement you wish to defend. To try
and label any event as either Good or Evil in a non-holistic absolute fashion is, in
general, clearly absurd.
On 24 Jan 99, at 16:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Most people, including many on this
> mailing list, still see Morality in terms of what they've been taught from
> birth and fail to see the potential of a new Quality-centred ethical
> system. This includes many of the recent posts regarding Good and Evil -
> rehashed old attitudes.
>
> Roger now asks:
>
> Could you be more specific? What observations do you have that others
> have been missing?
I've given a general outline of my position above. My position on the recent Good vs.
Evil debate is that Good and Evil are value judgements from the point of view of
intellect. They are terms which have very little value when applied to a more
inclusive
assessment of an event or action. I don't profess to be the only person on the list to
understand that a quality-centred holistic moral system is of greater value than an
intellect-centred or social-centred system - far from it. My reasons for writing the
above
are that many of the arguments that I have seen recently supporting one form of moral
system or another are centred around Libertarian or Utilitarian arguments. Individual
liberty and/or social responsibility are not the whole story.
Horse
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Queries - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with
UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
