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.
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 - 16:00:51 BST