Dear Mark,
You asked 9/10 19:22 -0700: "how does the MOQ address the
'relativity' of moral positions" and "What proof do we offer that
Modernity, for example, is preferable value?".
What THE MoQ says is something we can try to reach experiential
consensus on (and until we reach consensus I prefer to speak
about "what could one say on the basis of A MoQ").
Pirsig wrote in chapter 17 of "Lila":
"When you define morality scientifically as that which enhances
evolution it sounds as though you have really solved the problem
of what morality is. But then when you try to say specifically
what is and what isn't evolution and where evolution is going,
you find you are right back in the soup again. The problem is
that you can't really say whether a specific change is
evolutionary at the time it occurs. It is only with a century or
so of hindsight that it appears evolutionary."
My summary: Wait and see and meanwhile don't pretend moral
omniscience. Follow Rog's example and explicitly or implicitly
always add to your moral opinions "I could be wrong".
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 - 16:01:34 BST