Hi Platt, thanks for the response. Two things:
1. The structure of Pirsig's argument. You quote him -
> "Is it immoral, as the Hindus and Buddhists claim, to eat the flesh of
> animals? Our current morality would say it's immoral only if you're a
> Hindu or Buddhist. Otherwise it's okay, since morality is nothing more
> than a social convention.
>
> "An evolutionary morality, on the other hand, would say it's
scientifically
> immoral for everyone because animals are at a higher level of
> evolution, that is, more Dynamic, than are grains and fruits and
> vegetables."
I think it would be worth fleshing this out (pun not intended).
i) The MoQ asserts that animals are at a higher level of quality than grains
and fruits and vegetables - they are more open to dynamic evolution etc.
ii) Other things being equal, we should act in such a way as to foster the
dynamic capacity of the overall system (that is what being 'moral' counts as
according to the MoQ).
Therefore
iii) We should (where possible) be vegetarian as this fosters the dynamic
capacity etc.
I would argue that this argument is at best incomplete; I would further
contend that it depends upon mistaken assumptions. Some comments upon the
above points:
i) This I think is uncontroversial, given the terms of the MoQ.
ii) Similarly I think part ii) follows from the nature of the MoQ - if you
accept this as the basic framework, then it seems to me that this is the
logical conclusion.
However, it seems to me that there is a logical leap from i) and ii) to get
to iii). I think that Pirsig is assuming (tacitly):
iia) Humans have greater dynamic capacity than animals, therefore their
needs are paramount ("It would be immoral for Hindus not to eat their cows
in a time of famine, since they would then be killing human beings in favor
of a lower organism.")
iib) Humans do not have to eat animals in order to preserve their dynamic
capacity.
I think that if you include iia) and iib) then the argument is coherent, and
'proves' that the MoQ requires vegetarianism. However, I do not think that
iib) is true. My point is that only elements i) and ii) in the original
argument derive from the MoQ (as does element iia)); element iib) is not
something derived from the MoQ, it is something that can be (in principle)
established as a matter of fact by 'normal' science, and dependent upon what
the facts eventually prove to be, the mandatory nature of vegetarianism (by
the light of the MoQ) is then either proven or not proven.
2. You write:
>
> Here "evolutionary morality" is a synonym for the MOQ which Pirsig
> compares to our "current morality." Further, Pirsig claims that the MOQ
> provides scientific determination of what is moral and what isn't. So
> assuming that words mean things, and that Pirsig means what he
> says, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that according to the MOQ,
> eating meat is "scientifically" immoral.
The latter part of this paragraph I think I've dealt with above. But I must
confess to having great difficulty with the language of something being
'scientifically' immoral - frankly, it is reminiscent of the totalitarian
governments of the last century. It seems to me that the word scientific is
in this context being used rhetorically, to lend support to the other
assertions (and the authority employed derives from SOM!!!). Bizarre, given
how far ZAMM goes to disengage our minds from unthinking obeisance to
scientific forms of thought.
I am aware - my memory prompts me - that Pirsig is using this language in a
particular sense in Lila, as he is trying to get away from the idea that all
morality is 'just' a matter of opinion. He is trying to defend himself
against that by the use of this language. But I don't think that it works,
and I think it is counter-productive.
> Neither you nor I nor most of Western civilization can accept that moral
> precept, throwing the metaphysics of "evolutionary morality"-- that
> Pirsig invented and delineated -- into question.
In part - yes. I don't think that it threatens the MoQ as a whole, though,
just some of the derivative language that is used incautiously in parts of
Lila.
Hmm. I'm a bit unhappy with the second part of this post, I don't feel that
I've spelt out exactly what the problems are, but I write in haste!
Apologies.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
