Hello Jon and all,
JON
>So I think it's fair to say Pirsig considers morality to be as real as
>gravity. I wonder how many members agree that Morality and Quality are the
>same thing? Platt, you agree. Horse agrees. Jonathan agrees (i think!). 3WD
>I'm not sure about. Diana I believe thinks they are different, and does Ian,
>Dennis, and probably Glenn. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. We should do
>a survey on this issue. We really should.
For what it's worth, I can go along with Q=M, though it depends on
interpretation.
However, Jon's later statement jolted me back to a past theme of mine - water
running down the mountain:
>Why are we going downhill morally? Is Objectivity to blame at all? That's the
>question, . . .
The water generally flows downhill, but can build up speed to get UP over
small obstacles.
If you are smart, one can even get water to go up over the peak using a
syphon.
Thus, to go short-term against the flow can on the wider scale lead to greater
overall flows.
Similarly, things that seem immoral in isolation may contribute to a greater
overall morality.
This idea can be used or abused to justify things like nuclear weapons,
capital punishment and violent revolutions. It can also be used to justify
scientific amorality. There is nothing wrong with using scientific objectivity
to support a higher goal. As example would be giving patients a placebo (no
benefit to the individual) in order to develop a new treatment (possible very
good for future patients). This ties in beautifully with the dialogue I had
with Struan.
In summary, M=Q works for me, but we must always seek the widest possible
picture of M/Q.
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