Hi Platt,
Keep pushin', it forces my to harmonize my thoughts as well...
P:
What you say is all well and good, an accurate description of Pirsig's
general thoughts. So is it ultimately up to each individual to answer
what constitutes social good?
R:
Each individual does determine what is good, and it can differ based upon his
or her strengths and weaknesses, background and context. Pirsig clarifies
this in both books, and I agree completely. However, people can also
establish shared rules or commandments and make it so that it is of higher
quality to comply with the rules than to violate them. Over time, the rules
can become quite codified. Moral authority can be transferred from a personal
decision to a social or religious pattern.
P:
So if I find from my
experience that I can find harmony by cheating on my income tax, it
would be OK? By saving the money that would otherwise go to the
government (and probably wasted), wouldn't I find the "goodness of my
experience" improved, assuming the risk of getting caught didn't bother
me?
R:
I am sure many people do come to this exact conclusion. Others avoid lieing
altogether because of a religious belief that it is just wrong (they choose
to install a moral authority) others avoid it because their beliefs are that
their society would work better by being honest, others avoid cheating
because they fear getting caught, other intentionally do cheat because they
view taxation as wrong, etc.
P:
What I see in your response is good old relativism wherein what is
right for one person may be wrong for another, i.e., one for all and all
for one and every man for himself.
R:
I am not a cultural relativist, as I believe that many of our values are
biologically inherent, and that I believe that some cultures are themselves
more successful (more good) than others. However, I do agree with
relativists (and RMP) that context can certainly help determine the
appropriateness of some behavior. For example, the ramifications are
different for having premarital sex in a Berkeley dorm than in Afghanistan
during the reign of the Taliban. There is nothing inherently bad about sex,
it is just the potential for bad results that makes it tricky (unwanted
pregnancy, ability of men to exploit the situation and avoid commitment,
disease, social ostracism, etc, etc etc) Some of these things change with the
culture, or technology, some don't.
I certainly do not believe in every man for himself at the expense of others.
I believe people (and systems in general) should find mutually beneficial
ways of interacting. Win/win interactions are self reinforcing and self
amplifying, and they self organize into higher quality patterns (ie people
trading for mutual advantage becomes the foundation for an economy).
P:
Of course, your explanations of the
virtues of capitalism show you have certain standards of social
morality--health, wealth, democracy, freedom, education, lifespan,
nutrition, safety nets, etc.,etc. All these have some basis for being
"good." My question is, what basis? If these "goods" are self-evident as
you seem to suggest, how come everyone doesn't insist on them?
R:
The foundation for these is of course biological. As common members of the
same species, we share overwhelming biological similarities with each other
(good includes getting air, food, water, shelter, companionship, etc).
Society forms as a way for us to cooperate and compete together to improve
our mutual realizations of biological quality. However, culture is extremely
plastic, and humans are extremely adaptable in some biological tendencies.
As such, every society differs in various ways (like symbols of status), yet
also stays broadly the same in others (tendency to protect ones children).
Over time, some societies have become phenomenally successful, leading to the
above list along with racial/sexual equality, bountiful opportunity, etc.
However, every complex solution also tends to have emergent problems or
tradeoffs, and not every solution is logically reachable based upon a society
or person's current level of development. Other societies may resist these
patterns. Sexist men, for example, might resist empowering women because it
reduces their ability to exploit. Democracy may violate their valuable
religious patterns. Free enterprise may trespass on their idealistic
upbringing. Excessive safety nets may interfere with one's beliefs that self
reliance is invaluable. Wealth may interfere with one's values of equality,
or with one's concern for the environment.
In brief, not all of these GOODS are self evident. Others violate existing
cultural or personal backgrounds. Others lead to unacceptable tradeoffs.
However, where they can and do work, I believe that they are the best
cultural solutions available. Societies that are educated, healthy, free,
wealthy, etc are the most vibrant, dynamic, intellectual, creative and
harmonious cultures in existence. But I really could be wrong.
P:
Goodness knows (pardon the pun) there's a wide divergence of views
on what constitutes social good just on this site. Is there a basis on
which these can be resolved?
R:
Given diverse and competing social patterns, all that is needed is time and
our careful ensurance that we don't stiffle our dynamic nature (or let our
dynamic technologies get ahead of us and stiffle us via catastrophe). Over
time, people and cultures will vote with their behavior. Either modern
people will go into the rainforest and become hunter-gatherers, or
hunter-gatherers will come out to join society. Socialist nations will
compete over time against capitalist nations and the people will judge the
results themselves. Cultures that make their women wear veils and stay
uneducated and get clitorectomies will have to face the "unfair advantage" of
competing with cultures where every person contributes and is given
opportunity regardless of sex. Nations that pollute and destroy their
environment will self destruct, while those that exist in harmony with the
earth won't. Those people that believe in disfunctional, idealistic,
non-pragmatic thought processes will waste their lives chatting with other
disfunctionals on the internet, while those that put their beliefs and ideas
to test will change the world.
Some complex systems evolve. I believe society and science can both evolve
over time, and if the conditions are right, this evolution can be quite
progressive.
Rog
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 - 16:02:10 BST