Hi Horse:
Glad to see you jump in on the morality discussions. As usual, your post is
provocative, and as usual, I have a number of comments and questions,
mostly questions.
HORSE:
The MoQ contains most, if not all, of the answers if you know where to find
them. They aren't necessarily in Lila but it's a good place to start. Cultural
relativity, along with moral relativity can be discarded as worthless garbage.
To say that one culture is as good as any or all cultures or that one moral
system is as good as any other is nonsense. If there is no difference then
they're all the same and as they aren't the same then one will be better than
another - DEPENDENT UPON CONTEXT. (Note to Platt: Moral relativism
states that one moral system is as good as any other and that all systems
should be given equal respect and status. So a moral system that accepts
abortion and one that doesn't are of equal status and should be respected
equally - from this we are meant to derive some form of action. Complete
Crap! Moral action relative to circumstances (i.e. contextual) is a completely
different kettle of fish.)
PLATT:
Your last sentence, �Moral action RELATIVE to circumstances ...� admits
that Contextualism as a moral stance is relative, even though relative to a
different variant than cultural relativity. Relativism and Contextualism may be
different fish, but both swim in the same kettle because both answer
questions about the propriety of an action by saying, �Well, that depends.� In
contrast, a universal morality answers moral questions, �That�s right (or
wrong) under any and all circumstances.�
When Pirsig says its right for doctors to kills germs, he states a universal
moral truth. In Chap. 13 he writes,� This is not just an arbitrary social
convention that should apply to some doctors but not to all doctors, or to
some cultures but not all cultures. It's true for all people at all times, now and
forever, a moral pattern of reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with
morals on the basis of reason. We can now deduce codes based on
evolution that analyze moral arguments with greater precision than before.�
To say, �all people at all times, now and forever� sounds universal to me.
(Maybe you�ll accept the term �universal� in lieu of �absolute� which I know
you can�t abide.) Question: Do you think there are any �universal� moral
truths, i.e., truths that are not contextual?
HORSE:
I think your current problem (and Jon's) is one of Altruism versus
Selfishness. Few people are happy to wear the label 'SELFISH' and many
are afraid that to be labeled 'ALTRUIST' is the same as 'SUCKER'. Again,
context is important. You seem to want more people to be altruistic in their
outlook and others will fight against it as it appears to go against Libertarian
principles. But Libertarian principles, given a particular context, can be either
selfish or altruistic or somewhere in between. To be an Altruist in a
predominantly selfish environment is dangerous and makes for a short and
unhappy life. Similarly, to be selfish in a predominantly altruistic
environment, even though you may thrive for a time, will get you labeled as a
sponging git and removed from the environment. The solution you need may
be extracted once you have defined the problem properly.
PLATT:
Speaking of definitions, how do you define �environment.� That term can
cover a lot of territory. Surely it covers the culture one inhabits. What�s the
difference between �environment,� �context� and �circumstances?� I�m
confused.
HORSE:
General Stuff:
The two main problems that seem obvious looking over the recent posts are:
The problems being discussed are ill-defined and/or too broad.
Solution - Narrow down the problem and define it in an appropriate context.
PLATT:
I thought Roger�s moral dilemmas were reasonably narrow and defined. What
would you add? Would Truman�s decision to use the atom bomb be morally
different today than it was at the time it was made, given the same
circumstances? Or is it always (universally) wrong to kill so many people in
one fell swoop?
HORSE:
Basic moral principles are similarly ill-defined.
Solution - Define and clarify basic MoQ principles relating to moral action.
PLATT:
I thought we�d been there, done that. We�ve had many posts on MoQ
principles. What have we missed?
HORSE:
None of the problems I�ve seen discussed recently are going anywhere. They
vary between Emotivism (I believe X, do so too) and pasting the MoQ onto
already held beliefs.
PLATT:
Agreed. I can see how Emotivism can be cured by giving reasons for one�s
moral decisions based on some overall moral structure such as one finds in
the MoQ. But the �pasting� problem has me stumped. Once somebody
asked, �What moral views that you held previously has the MoQ changed?�
or words to that effect. The response was telling by its absence. I really
wonder if, once a moral outlook is established in someone�s mind and heart,
usually in childhood, any change is possible through rational persuasion. It
seems name-calling is the primary means by which one person or group
tries to change another�s moral outlook. Did the MoQ change any of your
prior moral views?
HORSE:
Is it possible to behave morally? Are we determined or do we have free will.
Only if we have free will can we CHOOSE to act morally (and I'm going to get
really pissed off if someone gives me the standard Pirsig fudge that our
actions are free when we follow DQ, 'cause if we don't CHOOSE our course
then we are not FREE. Are we being continually being blown about by the
wind of DQ or can we make a choice of the most Dynamic action. Choice
still comes into the equation and the question of whether we have it or not
still needs to be answered)
PLATT:
I think everyone participating in these discussions operates under the
assumption that we have free will and can make moral decisions. Otherwise,
there�s no point in discussing morals at all. Those who say we don�t have
free will have a lot of explaining to do, like, �What, after all, is the likelihood
that an atom possesses within its own structure enough information to build
the city of New York?� (Lila, Chap. 12.)
HORSE:
It's easy to be selfish, just follow your biological nature. But altruism is a lot
more difficult
and requires some thought.
PLATT:
E.O. Wilson and other sociobiologists would disagree. They say altruistic
behavior comes about naturally (without thought) because it once served the
interests of our ancestor�s genes. See �The Moral Animal� by Robert Wright.
Like I said, Horse, lots of questions. Hope to hear back and wish we�d hear
from you more often.
Platt
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]
