MD Riff's Moral Dilemmas

[RISKYBIZ9]

ROG SHARES YEARS OF COMMONLY ACCEPTED MORAL SHORTCOMINGS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE MOQ RIFF: I must be brief.� I have two days to finish prep for a 10 min presentation to my Ethics class on the MOQ and how it handles "moral" dillemmas.� Because of this, your observation regarding politicians ("R/R Proof") was very important to me as I must be prepared for just such questions.� My conclusion is similar: Evolution is utterly aloof to our evaluations; Quality is, as ROG puts it, a "Positive Sum" proposition (as I have only had time to glance at his work, I may well be missing his point entirely); and with these in mind, our "ethical" evaluations are of strictly local relevance in space and time, as we can never hope to know the DQ of the ultimate "end result" if there is such a thing... And I intend to show all this in a 10 min presentation!? My KINGDOM for a NUTSHELL!!! ROG: Let me help out a bit. I have been involved or followed or subsequently studied every dialogue in the various MOQ forums since their creation. Below is my summary of the MOQ and the moral dilemmas that it still faces (along with some suggestions on solutions): In a metaphysics where reality is defined by value, there is no difficulty reconciling morality and ethics with empirical views of reality. A value-based metaphysics is not only a more accurate description of the physical world, it is a more comprehensive view. The materialist perspectives of Western science and philosophy got it wrong from the start, and have never been able to address the real world of bank tellers, casual days, guilt and hunger, let alone such moral issues as truth, compassion, freedom or justice. Their models excluded or dismissed the nonphysical from the outset. The MOQ includes values and a moral hierarchy.  According to Robert Pirsig, the MOQ allows us to analyze morals on the basis of reason.  "We can now deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral arguments with greater precision than before." He explains that: "In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is at a higher level of evolution, is more moral." This is not an emotive "Pirsig says so" statement. It is a logical necessity of the metaphysics.  By equating reality, morality and  Dyanamic Quality together, it does naturally follow from the assumptions that  that which is more Dynamic is more moral. As such, not only is the MOQ more consistent with modern science than materialist metaphysics; AND not only is it more inclusive of issues which are outright dismissed in the predominant world view; it also works as the foundation for a rational moral guide.   However, the MOQ is not without problems. Long term members of this forum have found several  inadequacies within Pirsig's rational ethics. The major problems include: 1) A moral evolutionary hierarchy works well between levels, but not within a given level. Sure, a country is more important than a cow, but who needs the Metaphysics of Quality to tell us this? Most of the interesting moral dilemmas aren't between levels, they are within levels. Was Truman justified in dropping nuclear weapons on Japan? The MOQ is silent on interaction within a level, except where patterns are grossly disparate in evolutionary complexity. 2) The next shortcoming is that determining the level a pattern belongs to is extremely complicated. There are several problems causing this confusion. First, Pirsig is much too sketchy and even contradictory on what makes up patterns in each of the levels. As a result, people categorize actions subjectively and many moral dilemmas break down into chaos. Second, things in the MOQ don't necessarily belong to a single level. A human, for example (such as Lila) involves patterns from all four levels, and they are Dynamic (and therefore unpatterned) to boot! In a conflict, which values take precedence? Is every criminal a potential intellectual? Were Clinton's transgressions social, biological or intellectual? Or a combo of the above? How about Congress' response? 3) The MOQ ignores matters of degree. Certainly a man is more important than a log, but is a man more important than a rainforest? We already agreed that a nation is more important than a cow, but is the sovereignty of the smallest and most strife-ridden, corrupt country on earth worth the extinction of every species of cow? These are extreme cases for the sake of making the point, but less extreme cases only exacerbate the moral dilemmas. [NOTE: The above are my best renditions of the more infamous well-agreed-to shortcomings in the MOQ.  I know of NOBODY who has seriously refuted these charges in a manner that the majority of members has taken seriously. Beyond this point though, are some of my added takes on the issue. These are NOT agreed to AT ALL.] So, what is missing in the MOQ? Two things. The first is that the levels need to be better defined.  The second problem is that Pirsig seems to assume a zero-sum world from the outset. The MOQ focuses to a great extent on conflict. This is reasonable, as the universe is overwhelmingly zero sum and conflicts of values are widespread. But it isn't completely zero sum, and the non-zero sum dimension IMO is the one that holds the key to not only defining the levels, but in the case of the higher levels, of creating them as well. To be more specific, I am suggesting that same-level moral dilemmas do have a solution. The answer is that the most moral interactions between patterns are win/win. The best solution isn't to harm one pattern for the benefit of the other, it is to find a strategy that benefits both. In strict game theory terminology, it is to, wherever possible,  avoid zero-sum and negative sum interactions, and to actively foster or create positive sum interactions. The most moral action in 1941 from a global perspective was obviously that the US and Japan should have tried to cooperate (as they do today). Granted, this is always easier said than done. The relationship between the countries (and possibly within the countries) was not advanced and moral enough at the time for them to cooperate. At least one of them attempted to exploit the other. When war broke out in Pearl Harbor, the US had a full right to protect itself from Japan. Once one of the two chose a less than moral course, the death of millions was the unfortunate outcome as each attempted to survive at the others expense. The fallacy is to assume that interactions must be zero sum. This is not a valid assumption. I am in the process of working out the details of how the MOQ can be improved by clearly delineating that win/win interactions are not only a possibility, but that they virtually define the emergence of higher levels out of the lower. But this needs to wait for another day. BTW,  one additional moral concern that you should know is that the MOQ explains that men are more evolved than animals, which are more evolved than plants.  Biologically speaking, this is not correct in modern evolutionary theory. Every species alive today is considered equally evolved. The MOQ is using nontraditional definitions of "evolved."  I don't see a problem with this if it is clearly recognized and explained. Hope this helps, Rog PS -- I know I haven't adequately supported my win/win hypotheses.  I do not have the time to do so....yet.