Dear Wim, (and all MD)
you wrote:
> my metaphysics contains "a set of answers to
> the questions 'How can we know?' (epistemology),
> 'What can we know?' (ontology) and 'How can we
> know what we should do?' (deontology)." It doesn't
> contain answers to the question "What should we do?"
> (ethics). (Unlike Marco 2/11 16:56 +0100 I take ethics
> to be a philosophical system and morality/morals to be
> a system of ideas as expressed in everyday practice,
> e.g. commercial morality or Christian morality. I am
> used to catch Marco's distinction between general
> criteria and criteria for everyday choices and behavior
> in the concept of "values" versus the concept of "norms".
Not that I'm a great supporter of definitions, but after your message I
looked at an online dictionary of philosophy that is my source when I need
them: the Free On Line Dictionary Of Philosophy
http://www.swif.uniba.it/lei/foldop/
W
> [my metaphysics] doesn't contain answers to the question
> "What should we do?" (ethics).
Foldop
<<Metaphysics: the study of or branch of philosophy concerned with the
ultimate nature of reality and with existence as a whole>>
M
Well, in Pirsig the *ultimate nature of reality* is value, and universe is a
moral order. Thus, metaphysics (that is concerned with the ultimate nature
of reality) and the question "what should I do" can't be separated: we
should create value (life is a migration toward DQ).
W
> my metaphysics contains a set of answers to the questions
> 'How can we know?' (epistemology),
Foldop
<<Epistemology: one of the major branches of philosophy, also known as
philosophy of knowledge. It concerns the forms,
nature, preconditions, sources, types and limits of knowledge>>
M
OK
W
> 'What can we know?' (ontology)
Foldop
<<Ontology: A systematic account of what there is, an inventory of what
exists. >>
M
OK.... maybe. Is "what we know" an "account of what there is"? According to
a SOMish view, yes. According to the MOQ? What we know (the inventory)
exists (has value)... it is one of the levels... we are part of the
inventory... the inventory is part of us... (I think need a farther
meditation)
W
> 'How can we know what we should do?' (deontology).
Foldop
<<Deontology: any ethical position claiming that the rightness or wrongness
of actions depends on whether they correspond to our
duty or not. The word derives from the Greek word for duty, "deon". More
generally, any kind of ethical theory that puts its
emphasis on universal imperatives like moral laws, duties, obligations,
prohibitions, and so on (sometimes this is also called
"imperativism")>>
M
so, deontology (being an ethical position) comes necessarily after ethics.
Thus, your system of ideas can't contain deontology without containing or
being ethics. Thus, you can't state that your metaphysics is about
deontology and not about ethics.
W
> Unlike Marco 2/11 16:56 +0100 I take ethics to be a philosophical
> system and morality/morals to be a system of ideas as expressed
> in everyday practice, e.g. commercial morality or Christian
> morality.
>
> I am used to catch Marco's distinction between general
> criteria and criteria for everyday choices and behavior in the
> concept of "values" versus the concept of "norms".
>
Foldop
<<Morality: "morality" refers to the first-order beliefs and practices about
good and evil by means of which we guide our
behavior. Contrast with ethics, which is the second-order, reflective,
critical and normative consideration of our moral beliefs
and practices>>
Foldop
<<Ethics: branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human
conduct. Philosophers commonly distinguish: descriptive ethics, the factual
study of the ethical standards or principles of a group or tradition;
normative ethics, the development of theories that tematically denominate
right and wrong actions; applied ethics, the use of these theories to form
judgments regarding practical
cases; and meta-ethics, careful analysis of the meaning and justification of
ethical claims>>
M:
I can drop the term "criteria" I used in precedence, as it can be unclear.
But according to these definitions I think I was much more close to them
than you. Actually, morality is "first order" and ethics "second order"...
and it suggests that first we have morality, then we have ethics. While you
seem to state the opposite.
Especially the definition of ethics: about "human conduct", "standards or
principles", "right and wrong actions", "practical cases" is all about
choices, action, practical behavior, and that's what I was meaning....
of course, I could be wrong. Comments?
Ciao,
Marco
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 - 16:01:38 BST