From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Oct 04 2002 - 20:53:41 BST
Hi Steve:
> My question is in what sense is a human at a higher level of
> evolution than a dog or a vegetable for that matter? We
> both have undergone the exact same number of years of
> evolution so there is no true scientific argument to make.
I'd say a human is at a higher level than a dog because a dog can't
argue the point, scientifically or otherwise. (-:
Or put it another way. Would you rather be a dog than human? If not,
why not?
Or, regarding his lot in life, who is more free to change it, a dog or a
human?
Or, if you judge evolution by width and depth of awareness (Quality),
would you say dogs come out on top?
Your question raises the same problem with science that Pirsig raises.
Science being objective doesn't make moral judgments. (That's what
they claim, anyway.) So science can't admit that in evoluntionary terms
something (a human) is better than something else (a dog) , nor that
there is any purpose to evolution at all. Is this the attitude, Pirsig asks,
that those in charge of society should have? If not, what basis should
there be for morality? Should the basis be what the most powerful group
says it is (postmodernists), what religious leaders preach
(fundamentalists), what a culture traditionally allows (relativists), or
what a "vague, amorphous soup of sentiments" suggests (humanists,
socialists)? Pirsig's answer is to propose a rational morality based on
the MOQ. Since only humans occupy the highest moral evolutionary
level, the intellectual, they're morally superior to animals. Similarly,
animals are morally superior to mud. Within this "football field" of moral
guidance, there's still plenty of room for argument. But at least there's
rational ground on which to play.
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:52 GMT