Struan,
You wrote:
As Pirsig is clearly a deontologist....
Do you think he is really "clearly" a deontologist?
While I see the Kantian in Pirsig (the MoQ sometimes seems like a little
'categorical imperative' factory) I also see a very strong presence of
utilitarianism in the sort of cost/benefit analyses that Pirsig uses in his
"civil war" "capital punishment" and "doctor/germ" examples (among others).
Not to mention that the qualification that higher levels have a duty to
preserve the levels beneath them makes the whole system a giant cost/benefit
analysis seeking to find the most good/Quality (ex. Does cutting down
forests to produce lumber and paper and other useful Sociological goods do
enough harm to the wild {or the Biological} to make it immoral? Trees
produce oxygen and support wildlife but society needs the goods that trees
are converted into. But society can be wasteful and use more of these goods
than they need and devestate its ecosystem....etc,etc,etc...). It's almost
as if we go through a long utilitarian style cost/benefit analysis to
generate categorical imperative style rules that the MoQ treat as
(relatively) binding.
Your thoughts?
Rick
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 - 16:00:59 BST