Hi Rog:
I've reflected on your answers. By and large I agree with your analysis,
but still have a few questions.
> 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.
I like your emphasis on individualism which corresponds to the MOQ.
Individuals are ends in themselves, not means to the ends of others.
This is the Hayek/capitalist view as opposed to the Marxist/socialist
idea.
> 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.
An accurate description of how different people respond differently to
the same situation. A good example to keep in mind.
> 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.
Values being "biologically inherent" makes me wonder just how much
you ascribe to Robert Wright's thesis in "The Moral Animal" where he
argues that social morality (the subject of our conversation here) is an
adaptation designed to maximize genetic self-interest, a function
hidden from our conscious experience? In other words, he claims our
moral principles are intuitive. I don't buy the genetic explanation
completely, but do think entities possess an innate judgment sense
that is tied so closely to experience that the two are inseparable.
> 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).
The key here is voluntary trading for mutual benefit as opposed to
coercion against one's individual judgment towards some supposed
larger public good. We agree.
> 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.
I find nothing to question here. Nor is there anything in the MOQ that I
can find to suggest you are 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.
A good, pragmatic view. To summarize briefly: Moral authority is a
misnomer in that the only true "authority" is within each individual.
Recognition that the world is a moral order with competing levels of
values (as described in the MOQ) gives an individual a better
understanding of his own and others behavior, and can lead him or her
to make better personal decisions.
Is that about right, recognizing that I could be wrong?
Platt
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