My concerns about Struan,
Struan writes, "Platt writes of the unspoken assumption of unbelievers being
the undeniable moral value of truth. It was clear to me from the outset that
this relied upon a re-invention of the word 'moral' and this
was shown to be the case when Platt presented his definition.
Platt wrote: "Morality is what's good, right, true or beautiful."
Struan writes: "The problem is that this is not what is meant by morality.
Morality is entirely concerned with the
goodness or badness of human behaviour. It is not surprising that if the
'unbeliever' is confused by
the terms he is using, then he will be even more confused by the argument
that Platt presents.
A concern: Struan, you are suggesting that morality is confined to aspects
of behavior and thereby restrict any evolution in the understanding of what
morality is and how it can be viewed.
Struan writes: "At issue here is not my objection to Pirsig re-inventing
definitions of perfectly good words
(although I object to that also); it is the way that this obfuscation is
designed purely to
establish a deeply flawed point. There is a huge and vital difference
between the 'good' of utility
(e.g. 2 + 2 = 4 is a good answer) and the 'good' of morality (e.g. It was
good of you to help that
old lady across the street). What Pirsig (and now Platt) has done is to
reduce the 'good' of
morality to the 'good' of utility. In doing so they advocate an irredeemably
amoral metaphysical
position. Yes, that is what I mean. The MoQ has nothing whatsoever to
contribute to debates about
morality, simply because it does not recognise anything beyond functional
uses of the term 'good.'"
Great concern: Yes, Pirsig has set forth a manner of viewing morality so
that one can discern the morality of an activity, just as one can discern
the morality of 2x2 equalling 4. It is not a "reduction" process, it is a
greater model that Pirsig introduced that enables a synthesis between the
good of utility and the good of morality (as you use this). The goodness is
working at different levels; helping an old woman across the street is
assisting at the level of society, making for a better neighborhood. The
goodness of 2x2=4 is at the level of idea; that it works has been of benefit
in how we apply our thoughts to particular problems. I might add that the
patterns of arithmetic have a beauty inherent within beyond pure utility.
You may wish to read ZAMM to help clarify the synthesis for yourelf. You
seem disconnected.
You suggest this reduction advocates an "irredeemably amoral metaphysical
position." What do you mean by that! Your terms are loose and your logic is
weak. I'm not sure how not recognising "anything beyond functional uses of
the term 'good'" (if such were true) could cause a metaphysics to be
"irredeemably amoral."
Struan writes: "Platt can repeat his point that every assertion is a moral
judgement after everything I (or others)
say if he so desires. Without resorting to comments about his ancestry I
will simply repeat my point
that he should look up morality in a dictionary. If Platt then comes back at
me and tells me that
the dictionary is wrong and that 2 + 2 = 4 is a moral assertion, I will
rightly conclude that he is
(despite his protestations) some sort of new age nut whose moral foundation
is as insubstantial as
castles in the sand."
Eeeeeks: Struan, such unbecomming language for a scholar. I'll tell you,
2+2=4 is indeed a moral assertion, as is 2x2=4. They tend to have greater
appeal than saying 2+2=5 or 2x2=5 (I wouldn't say these are "bad" answers,
however). All moral bases are castles in the sand - just as the axioms of
mathematics; Godel showed that for any logical system, there are always
theorems that cannot be proven by the axioms within that system.
Nonetheless, the MOQ does provide a model within which one can assess (or at
least contextualize) the relative morality of various activities. I doubt I
could substantiate the logical basis for this MOQ, and I doubt you could do
the same for any system. But at least the MOQ provides a broad and
consistent manner in which activities can be assessed; this is more than I
can say for any other system I have come across. Far removed from your
suggestion that "MoQ has nothing whatsoever to contribute to debates about
morality," I assert that the MOQ has and will make profound contributions to
debates about morality. Fix your tie.
Ed Eads
P.S. You got the syllogism wrong. It goes like this:
p156 "The Metaphysics of Quality says that if moral judgments are
essentially assertions of value and if value is the fundamental ground-stuff
of the world, then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff of the
world."
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@clara.co.uk>
"If you say that everything is moral then that means morality is
everything, which reduces to
everything is everything, which means nothing." (Struan - after Pirsig)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:44 BST