Hi Jonathan, Horse, David, Yellow Creek, Rob and Group:
At times I feel stuck in the Dakotas like Jonathan, but then along come
brilliant individual contributions like David's Intellect-Zen unifying post of
Feb. 20 and Horse�s Feb. 22 riposte to criticisms of socialism.
It is mighty tempting to respond to everything everyone says, but
impossible of course. Just let me say that, unlike some critics, I agree
with �Yellow Creek� that the general level of discussion on this site is far
above the average internet exchange. I have come to look forward to the
mail here because of its overall high quality. Contrary to your run of the
mill round table, business meeting or classroom discussion, much of what
is spoken here provokes honest-to-goodness thought.
So assessing the MOQ group on the "collective level" as Jonathan
suggests, I give it high marks. But I bristle at Jonathan�s idea that human
individuals can be compared to gas molecules, or that somehow we
share a collective responsibility for what others say. That just doesn�t jibe
with my idea of a free and open discussion where the marketplace of
ideas determines what thoughts will survive and have lasting influence.
The power of the free market of ideas becomes evident when we see
those who are inclined to argue by insult (and consequently easily
laughed off or ignored) voluntarily leaving the site never thankfully to be
heard from again.
Rob Stillwell posed the question, �Who is the better judge of a moral
question, an open-minded, sensitive person or one who is well versed in
the MOQ?�
My unequivocal answer is, �One well versed in the MOQ.� What's the
alternative? Just what we have today--moral relativism--where everyone
and anyone is free to do his own thing without fear of punishment (except
maybe murder, but then again look at O.J.).
Lie under oath in a court proceeding? No problem. Obstruct justice by
intimidating witnesses? Do it. Rape? Ho hum. Break your marriage vows?
Everybody does. Steal from your employer? He'll never miss it. Cheat on
your exam? It's expected. Die for your country? Don't make me laugh.
If I understand Rob correctly, he believes moral laws are man-made.
Result: ethical rules are arbitrary and thus no one is obligated to follow
them.
Moral relativism is the inescapable result of a universe lacking objective
moral principles. And moral relativism is what we've got today in spades,
so much so that we find a Monica Lewinsky mouthing such profundities
as, �The truth is what one believes it is and may be different for different
people. Truth depends on the circumstances.�
Well, there my friends goes civilization down the tube.
But wait. Maybe there's hope. Along comes Pirsig saying not only are
there moral principles but the whole enchilada consists of nothing but
moral values.
>From Chapter 24 of Lila: �Today, it seemed to Phaedrus, the overall
picture is one of moral movements gone bankrupt. Just as the intellectual
revolution undermined social patterns, the Hippies undermined both
social and intellectual patterns. The result has been a drop in both social
and intellectual quality. . . . It's this intellectual pattern of amoral
"objectivity" that is to blame for the social deterioration of America,
because it has undermined the static social values necessary to prevent
deterioration. In its condemnation of social repression as the enemy of
liberty, it has never come forth with a single moral principle that
distinguishes a Galileo fighting social repression from a common criminal
fighting social repression. It has, as a result, been the champion of both.
That's the root of the problem.�
I think moral issues must be decided on moral principles, not on the
whims of some "open minded, sensitive" mystic, if indeed such a person
exists this side of Jesus Christ. Prove to me you have risen from the
dead and I will obey your moral pronouncements. In the meantime, the
MOQ provides a reality-based rational framework to guide my moral
decisions.
Platt
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
