Hello everyone especially Platt, Glove, David B., Clark, Walter and whoever
else ...
XACTO
> Please respond to the above if you wish to go further (No one seems to
think
> I have anything worthwhile to say anyway).
Tell me about it ...
JONATHAN (12 Nov 1999) Re: Moral compass
>>PLATT's latest post raises questions about that yardstick:
>>Still, I'm far from satisfied with the alternative proposed by Jonathan
>>and others about relying on man's innate moral sense to guide us,
>>the problem being how to explain Mao, Stalin, and Hitler not to
>>mention Ghengis Kahn, Caligula and the priests of the Spanish
>>Inquisition.
>
>That's a fair objection Platt, and one that I think worth pursuing.
>I am going to stand by that "innate moral sense", but accept the
>challenge of explaining how it sometimes fails to prevent evil. That's
>not for this post - I need more time to think about how to present it.
>
That's what I wrote over 2 weeks ago, and I see that no-one has been holding
their breath.
To put it bluntly, nobody has really produced a satisfactory definition of
what morality actually is.
The problem is exacerbated because Pirsig contradicts himself. On the one
hand he insists that patterns, morals and values are all synonymous. On the
other hand, he divides up value patterns into 4 levels, and divides morals
up into 5 orders:
1. chaos vs. inorganic
2. inorganic vs. bio.
3. bio. vs. soc
4. soc. vs. intellectual
5. DQ vs SQ
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but 4 doesn't equal 5, and this contradicts the
value=moral equation.
Thus, I think we have to proceed very carefully from the ground up, and not
assume that Lila has all the answers.
Many months ago, I stated that the morality that concerns me is the morality
that determines how human beings act (more specifically, how *I* should
act). I don't know if it is more moral for a lion to feed on a lamb or lie
down with it - I'm neither a lion nor a lamb. However, I can say that it
would be a mistake to live our lives expecting lions to peacefully lie down
with lambs. Morality must go hand-in-hand with nature.
KEN has been our main advocate of looking at the natural evolution of the
universe as a moral process, starting with the Big Bang. . .
WALTER has raised problems with Ken's ideas:
>Ken,
>Though I always symphatized with your down-to-earth view of
>the MoQ, emphasizing the evolutionary way of Quality, I very
>much disagree with you on that sentience stopped the universe
>of being a moral universe.
>
>It somehow seems strange to me. You start of with the Big Bang,
>that way taking a very broad perspective on Morality. It includes
>everything in the universe: atoms, stars, galaxies, planets with,
>who knows, maybe even other lifeforms.
>You end however, with a very narrow perspective on Morality, namely
>one of a man who is dissappointed in (the sentience of) human kind
>for what it is capable of.
>
>My take on the damage sentience can do, is this:
>Morality is dependent on perspectives and therefore I agree with you
>using the term 'universal morality' and making a distinction between
>that and human morality (or ethics).
The way I see this is as follows: The whole Big Bang, expanding universe
scenario is a human viewpoint. This is how man has come to view his world,
but at different time things were seen differently. The ABSOLUTE reality may
well exist without man, but the reality we KNOW requires our presence to
KNOW it. This to me is the background to that expression "Man is the
Measure" which Pirsig quoted in ZAMM.
Thus, my take on human-centred morality is as follows: we humans act in
accordance with what we perceive to be the natural course of the universe.
At the same time, our decisions are part of that natural course. We perceive
a world in which our actions have consequences, and thus perceive that we
have free choice. On the other hand, we have pursued the idea of a
deterministic universe to the extent that the idea of free choice is
contradicted (the free choice platypus). Thus, modern man is totally
confused and has a hard time accepting the moral links between choices,
consequences and responsibility.
Morality is all about extrapolation and prediction: We can use our faculties
(including intellect) to extrapolate to a "moral outcome" that can only be
involved by a tortuous path. Giving a patient poisonous drugs may seem
immoral to the primitive mind, but moral when considered as a
chemotherapeutic cure for cancer. The only judgement involved is judgement
of the end result, and I don't consider that an "intellectual" judgement,
but a value judgement that any child could make. Saving life is good! Peace
and harmony are good.
The evil men of history were not necessarily evil because they were striving
for hell on earth. They sought some sort of heaven on earth, but they chose
a wrong path with tragic results. (Were they to stand trial, the defence
would inevitably be that they were misunderstood and prevented from
achieving the good that they sought).
I still see this morality topic as something terribly difficult, and hope we
can make some real progress.
Is anyone still thinking about this?
Jonathan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST