Struan and Group:
Here is Struan’s version of what Pirsig says: (from ltr dtd 18 Jan.)
“. . . Pirsig . . . tells us that every ethical dilemma can be placed
into his framework to give us an absolutely scientific answer,
which is binding upon all men for all times.”
Here is what Pirsig actually says: (from Chap. 13, Lila)
“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. An example of this
is the statement that, "It's more moral for a doctor to kill a germ
than to allow the germ to kill his patient." The germ wants to live.
The patient wants to live. But the patient has moral precedence
because he's at a higher level of evolution.
“Taken by itself that seems obvious enough. But what's not so
obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is
absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the patient.
This is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to
some doctors but not to all doctors, or to some cultures but not all
cultures. It's true for all people at all times, now and forever, a
moral pattern of reality as real as H20. We're at last dealing with
morals on the basis of reason. We can now deduce codes based
on evolution that analyze moral arguments with greater precision
than before. In the moral evolutionary conflict between the germ
and the patient, the evolutionary spread is enormous and as a
result the morality of the situation is obvious. But when the static
patterns in conflict are closer the moral force of the situation
becomes less obvious.”
By taking Pirsig’s words out of context and omitting several key
phrases, Struan gives a false account of Pirsig’s position. The
“absolute, scientific” to “every ethical dilemma” that Struan claims
Pirsig asserts actually applies only to the doctor-germ case as
shown in the phrase, “ . . . it is absolutely, scientifically moral FOR
A DOCTOR TO PREFER THE PATIENT.” Similarly, the context
clearly shows that the phrase “binding on all men for all times”
also applies to the doctor-germ example. Furthermore, Pirsig
qualifies Struan’s absolutist interpretation in several places, first
by beginning the section with “In general, given a choice of two
course to follow and all other things being equal . . .” and by
ending with . . . “the moral force becomes less obvious,” thereby
indicating that to apply the MOQ structure to every ethical situation
is no easy, cut and dried task.
In the paragraphs that follow (vegetarians, civil war, death penalty)
Pirsig illustrates the use of the MOQ structure to make rational
ethical decisions compared to relying on irrational social
convention which can only lead to the absurdities of moral
relativism where determining right or wrong depends on the
beliefs of the group you belong to (political correctness being the
prime example.) I’ll choose Pirsig’s method over PC any day.
Platt
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 - 16:00:58 BST