In a message dated 6/17/00 6:56:50 PM Central Daylight Time,
struan@clara.co.uk writes:
> No Jon, you have missed the point. Helping humans is morally good, as is
> helping animals and, yes,
> the former is better than the latter. My point is that helping humans is
of
> an entirely different
> order to my cooking tonight being good. I am not talking about relative
> moral goods, I am talking
> about moral goods as distinct from functional goods. I still find it hard
to
> believe that anyone
> (barring someone who rejects morality altogether) would not immediately
> apprehend the truth of what
> I am saying here.
JON:
I'm admittedly confused. I think I apprehend the truth of what you are
saying, but not the point of it.
Your position seems to be that there is a clear difference between doing
something that is Morally right (helping old women across the street) and
something that is functionally good (math problems, motorcycle maintenance).
And I agree. There is a clear-cut profound difference.
But Pirsig seems to be saying that while it is important to perceive this
difference (these two distinct types of goodness) it is also important to
remember that these two types of goodness are related at some deep level we
don't fully understand.
Is that the point I am missing? That you think there is no important
relationship between these two distinct types of goodness? And if so, are you
saying that this is the main defect in Pirsig's philosophy?
Jon
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