ELEPHANT TO DANILA AND BO:
I think I'm going to side with Bo here. Danila, look, the gap between fact
and value is absolutely essential to the gap between descriptive and
prescriptive. Indeed, it is just that gap.
If we agree, as I hope we do at MOQ, that the fact-value gap is a fiction of
a false metaphysics, then there is no avoiding the corrollary that the
descriptive-prescriptive gap is also a fiction of a false metaphysics.
Indeed, as I earlier remarked, this would be a good way of testing whether
such and such is really an MOQ inspired description: if it is, it ought also
to be a prescription.
Obviously, on the surface, an MOQ description doesn't have to be
prescriptive about everything, just as a description of a christmas tree
doesn't have to be a description of the 4 cycle internal combustion engine.
That said, once you start to map out the descriptive context (a *full*
description) of the christmas tree, then presents, Norway, transatlantic
travel etc come into the picture, and, before too long, the
prescriptive/descriptive contents of supposedly divers subject matters stand
there in need of coordination.
The same is true of conventional Morality and Quantum Mechanics, IMHO.
>> Bo wrote:
>>
>> When the topic of "MOQ as a moral guide" was up my conclusion was that a
>> description is a prescription in a closed feedback loop.
>
Danila wrote:
> I disagree. The MOQ can be used to describe Quality on different levels in a
> situation. But that's not the same as prescription. Take the example of the
> blind woman who wanted to have a baby, we can see several hypothetical
> outcomes with different consequences for Quality. But the "most moral"
> decision depends on how you evaluate the different possibilities. For the
> woman (a contributor to Social Quality), the most moral decision is to have
> the baby and its potential for high Social and Intellectual quality. For the
> doctor (a guardian of Biological Quality), the most moral decision is to guard
> against its 42% chance of low Biological quality. We can't say that a decision
> in favor of (potentially high) Intellectual quality is the most moral, because
> the Intellectual quality is not certain. But who is entitled to make the final
> decision? The MOQ doesn't say.
ELEPHANT:
Sure. But that's my point. Principally, MOQ is a metaphysics, not an
ethics. But what it does say is that insofar as we commit ourselves to a
description, we must be commiting ourselves to a prescription. If "The MOQ
doesn't say" prescriptively who is entitled to make the final decision, then
it can't, either, have any place being associated with the description.
It's a familiar danger that MOQ might be invoked to sancify our individual
points of veiw here, and the history of religion is a good warning. If this
is a genuine moral dilemma, then it is not the sort of thing MOQ can help
with. The only way any Metaphysics could help here, would be by suggesting
that one of the things we are giving value to in the dilemma is "illusory",
or a metaphysical mistake, or something of the kind. And, personally, I
don't think that's the case with the conflict as described (since to
describe is to prescribe...).
MOQ's predicament here is rather like that faced by Buddhism, from the
conventional point of veiw. Buddhism wouldn't sally forth with an answer to
the dilemma either. It would talk about "compassion". It would talk about
"enlightenment". But for obvious reasons, it would not rush in and declare
that the the mother's right to choose, or the babys right to life, are
"illusions". In so far as either of these things are illusions, they both
are: and that's just the same as saying that they are both equally real, and
present a genuine moral dilemma to which there can be no pat answer.
Which solution is the more compassionate? That is the question which ought
to be asked, and the reason Buddhism would ask it is this: compassion is the
proof of and route to greater enlightenment. Once you MOQers have have
recognised that value is the supreme reality in the world, and that subjects
and objects have only dependant being, what practical action ought first to
evolve from this insight? Well, this is the same as asking "what is the
primary subject, and also the primary object, experienced in our everyday
life?". The answer? Well, yourself, obviously. So the first thing
enlightenment ought to have a practical effect on is ego - something Prisig
talks about very thoughtfully in ZAMM. If you are trying to be enlightened,
then this is just the same, for most immediate practical puposes, as trying
to be absorbed in the other. This applies whether the other is a
Motorcycle, a great Painting, some bloke asking you a question in the
street, or an expectant mother (the opposite of disrespect intended).
Now, as to the dilemma, maybe helping this Woman might be the best way for
you to demonstrate other-centeredness, or compassion. Maybe, also, it is
none of your business, because your self indulgent speculations are going to
have no practical bearing on the other's situation whatsoever (pace,
moralists everywhere). Love isn't idle words, it's actions. But supposing
you are the doctor - well in that case this becomes a live issue, and a hard
one. Dear all, you'd better hope your Doctor isn't an egoist.
Pzeph
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 - 16:00:54 BST