Hi Struan,
Even though it has not been directed at me personally I would appreciate
it if you cut the abusive attitude. I think it only serves to devalue
your arguments, and they are too important to be sullied in this way.
I will admit to being highly amused with your exchange with"Tusky" - he
obviously hit a raw nerve there!
<<<JONATHAN:
[public health example of Rubella vaccination]
Here we have a clear case of the "bigger picture" taking precedence. On
an individual level (most closely matches Pirsig's biological),
vaccinating any person is a bad idea - the vaccine potentially does more
harm than good. On a wider level (matching Pirsig's social level),
vaccinating everyone
is of general benefit to society by preventing the birth of babies
malformed due to Rubella.>>>
STRUAN's response:
<<<
One could, with equal validity, argue that the individual is the peak of
the
intellectual level and so should not be encouraged to put itself at risk
for
the sake of society, therefore it is wrong to encourage individuals to
take
the vaccine. The 'bigger picture', I could claim, requires us to see
individuals as primarily a 'collection of ideas and these ideas take
moral
precedence over society' (Lila Chpt 13).
[snip]
As with all the other ethical examples I have
seen, one COULD just as easily come to another conclusion which is
equally
justifiable under Pirsig's framework. That, to me, is a very compelling
reason to throw out the framework altogether.
>>>
Struan, this probably applies to absolutely any framework you choose to
name.
I take it, therefore, that you reject them all. Otherwise, please
illustrate your answer.
STRUAN
<<<
As an aside, I suspect that the people who decided on which course of
action
to take in your example, relied upon the principle of utility to decide
their course of action - The action which produces 'the greatest
happiness
for the greatest number' is the right one to follow.
>>>
I'm sure that is correct. Now I'd like to see how the contradiction
between that and Pirsig . . .
On second thoughts, why bother - you will surely portray it as a
contradiction while I will look for the harmony.
<<<JONATHAN:
"I agree with one important provision. Since conscious human behaviour
derives from human understanding of given situations, the whole of
"understanding" is part of the moral framework.
>>>
STRUAN
<<<Agreed, in the sense that the whole of human understanding has a
direct
influence upon morality and can therefore reasonably be seen as part of
the
moral framework. I disagree in the sense that understanding ITSELF is
not
moral.. . .>>>
Too true - that is obvious if you insist on a divorce between
understanding and reality.
Is this the basis of your ethical system?
<<<
There is no sense in which I am immoral if I don't understand how
photosynthesis works in great detail, and there is no sense in which you
are
more moral simply because you do.
>>>
The case may arise where I am more moral, and you will end up destroying
something of great environmental value because of your lack of
understanding. One can't understand everything, but we try to understand
as much of the background as possible before making any decision. I
consider it immoral to do otherwise.
Let me snip from later in Struan indicates that he concurs:
STRUAN:
"Because I take an entirely pragmatic approach to ethics. Accumulating
as
many facts as possible about an issue demonstrably works well".
<<<
JONATHAN:
"Whether one values a leaf over a stone, or a flag over a human life are
highly ethical questions.">>>
STRUAN responded:
<<<Well the latter is, the former could be. It comes back to the 'human
behaviour' issue (upon which you agreed). I said that, 'there is no
rational
sense in which a leaf has moral priority over a stone' while your 'one'
has
introduced the moral agent required to change the statement and make it
rational. It is what one does with the stone that raises moral
questions.
Throw it at the policeman or stem the leak in the dyke, for example.
>>>
I introduced the 'one' quite deliberately. When you leave it out, you
have
*A*morality. The synthesis is important.
<<<
JONATHAN:
"As for consistency, although the general framework may be consistent,
any
individual moral pronouncement is unique. Otherwise, why should we ever
bother with elections? Let's decide on the most moral policies once and
for
all and then do away with democracy."
>>>
STRUAN
<<<But it is precisely my contention that the framework is not
consistent and I
hope my answer to your example continues to explain why.>>>
No, the framework can be consistent, but APPLIED inconsistently.
All frameworks can be (ab)used in this way.
It seems to me that STRUAN has forgotten about an earlier point on which
we agreed:
<<<JONATHAN:
. . . the MoQ fails to provide a set of rules of morality. It is
unreasonable
even to expect such rules from the Pirsig since it would be inherently
contradictory and lead only to moral stagnation.>>>
It thus strikes me that it is Struan's position that is inconsistent!
Jonathan
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