Greetings,
Happy to oblige.
Naturalism is the belief that good is reducible to at least one naturalistic property.
For example
if I say that the Buddha was a good man I can point to his acts of compassion,
kindness and love as
evidence that this is true. In MoQ terms there has been some equation of the good with
evolution
towards DQ thus I could (for example) make the ethical statement that 'X is good
because it has
evolved closer to DQ.'
The naturalistic fallacy goes back to G.E Moore who pointed out that seeking to define
moral terms
(good) by reducing them to non-moral statements (evolution towards DQ) is fallacious
because this
brings down the ethical term to a lower form. Thus I can ask the question, 'I know
that X is closer
to DQ, but is it good,' without contradicting myself and, in doing so, I preserve good
at a higher
level than merely evolving towards DQ. A more simple naturalistic fallacy has been
committed on our
sister forum by a couple of contributors equating good to DQ and to power.
I would suspect that the mystic would take the latter line by maintaining that DQ is
undeniable (as
Pirsig seems to), but I'm not sure how Pirsig (or the mystic) can then go on to argue
in a
naturalistic fashion about levels and morality without the corollary being a descent
into the
relativism that Platt rightly accuses Kevin's mysticism of committing. Although I have
to confess
that Kevin's brand of mysticism oscillates between naturalism and non-naturalism
without any
apparent link so ascertaining his true position is nigh on impossible.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
