Dear Sam, Gerhard, Bo, Horse & others,
Sam wrote 2/7 16:45 +0100:
"I write this as someone who was vegetarian for ten years, but who now
isn't, on the grounds that whilst it is possible to survive on a
meat-free diet, it is not (IMHO) possible to thrive."
I do thrive on vegetarian food for 25 years now. (I confess I eat meat
maybe once a year when food isn't easily recognisable or properly
labelled as 'carnivores only'.)
My reason for renouncing meat is not that it would be immoral for me
to be instrumental in killing lower life forms, but that I experience
it is as immoral for me to be instrumental in starving human beings
who can't afford to buy staple foods because these become too
expensive when they (or alternative crops on the same fields) are used
as fodder for our beef. I don't feel it is necessary for me be
completely vegan. Humanity should eat LESS meat and animal products to
provide for all its members but need not stop altogether.
(By the way, I am the one that is cooking most in my family and doing
all the shopping. Respecting the choice of wife and children to be
carnivores, I have become more experienced than my wife in preparing
meat.)
Gerhard wrote 4/7 21:13 +0200:
"Bo Skutvik, in his excellent 'The Quality event' states that:
The only criteria for a(ny) theory’s 'truth' are whether:
a) it is in accordance with experience,
b) is logically consistent and
c) does not need extraordinary long explanations (Occam’s razor).
I would also add that it needs to be useful, that you can use it in
order to come to some conclusions.
So can we all, based on our previously defined beliefs, use MoQ to get
a theory that is logical consistent and in accordance with our
experience? As you are able to come up with arguments for death
penalty, I guess someone with a brighter head than me also can come up
with a explanation for why it is more moral to eat meat than
vegetables. So it seems to me that MoQ is in accordance with Bo's
criteria, but I can't see that it is useful.
Are we all hypocrites, using the MoQ as a fortification for our
beliefs? Is the MoQ useful? I guess I have written this question a few
times already, with not much of a reply."
I agree that usefulness is also a necessary test of 'truth' in a MoQ.
Otherwise Pirsig could not call his MoQ an "offshoot" (Lila ch. 26) or
a "continuation of" (ch. 29) James's 'pragmatism'. Do you agree Bo?
Part of the test of usefulness is indeed whether one can reach moral
conclusions using the intellectual pattern of value of which the truth
is being tested. It is by no means necessary or even to be expected
however that these conclusions are the same for everyone. If I can
argue my case for vegetarianism more clearly employing a MoQ, that MoQ
is useful for me. The fact that Sam probably won't agree with my
conclusions, does not refute that MoQ. (I should have to reconsider my
version of a MoQ however if Sam would find my argumentation for
vegetarianism that does NOT employ that MoQ more convincing than the
one that DOES.) His experience that my arguments don't convince him
and compel him to become a vegetarian again would refute vegetarianism
to the extent that I present it as a moral choice valid for everyone
("humanity as a whole should not eat meat"). I can't deny the fact
that he probably had some bad experience as a result of his
vegetarianism, nor can he deny my thriving on it. There may be some
"tacit assumptions" (Sam 5/7 9:53 +0100) involved that -when taken
explicitly into account- would reconcile our experiences with
one -more complex- evaluation of vegetarianism (and that would induce
Sam to alter his statement into "it is not (IMHO) possible FOR ME to
thrive" without having to become a vegetarian again). Assumptions like
wrong cookery books or mutations in my genome.
Something like this must be the case with libertarianism and
gun-owning also, although I don't quite see how.
Horse wrote 5/7 1:32 +0100:
"Most of the problems that arise in this respect are from
superimposing the MoQ over a set of already held beliefs. Once you let
go of your old beliefs and start afresh from a Quality foundation and
apply an evolutionary morality the majority of problems dissolve."
His explanation of 5/7 14:04 +0100 makes this nearly acceptable for
me, but I would still rather see it like this:
The problem to me seems to me that we are testing a (not fully
explicit version of a) MoQ PLUS an intellectual pattern of value PLUS
a score of tacitly assumed (partly unconscious) other biological,
social and intellectual patterns of value against another (...) MoQ
PLUS a (slightly different interpretation of that) intellectual
pattern of value PLUS quite another score of tacit assumptions. We're
just trying to solve a set of equations with far too many unknowns.
With friendly greetings,
Wim Nusselder
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:24 BST