Hi Walter
I've snipped some of your post - hope you don't mind.
On 19 Dec 99, at 14:43, Walter Balestra wrote:
> I am interested in
> what Horse is going to answer to Platt's questions about the absoluteness
> of universal morality vs the relativity of answers to moral questions when
> made dependent upon context.
I'm still thinking about it and have replied to Platts questions. Hopefully Platt will throw up
some interesting replies to my post (he always does) and I'll spend some more time replying
to that post. Who knows, we may even get a consensus!!!
> 2 BOTTOM-UP MORALITY
>
> Cntrfrc has spent a lot of words fighting his disillussion with human kind.
> Although understandable, he makes the big mistake of first deciding how
> it SHOULD BE and subsequently imposing that on HOW IT IS. I think the
> controverse between IT'S LIKE THAT and IT SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THAT
> not only is highly present in attitudes towards socio-ethical problems,
> but also in the individual lives of people.
This seems to go back to my question (17/12/99) "Can we deduce the correct action (what
we SHOULD do) from the facts that confront us." This is the Fact/Value Dichotomy.
> It's a very negative viewpoint that has a high risk of leading to bitterness.
> Regarding the MoQ, it is of less value, because you discard the value of
> the thing THAT IS, whereas under the MoQ every-THING_THAT_IS has value.
Under MoQ there seems to be no difference between facts and values. In a value centred
system (MoQ) which defines reality as inherently moral, any facts about the world are moral
facts - "the physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the universe".
What we need to do now is separate 'Good' from 'Moral'.
> Ps Horse, you write:
> > Is it possible to behave morally?
> I would make that:
> > Is it possible to behave IMmorally? Which (sseing the above) I think gives more
> credit to morality under the MoQ
> Agreed?
>From an MoQ perspective reality is inherently moral so what we have to do now is consider
actions and behaviour as inherently moral. This now turns things around and we have to look
at what is GOOD. Rather than asking "is an action moral" we have to ask "is an action
good". This doesn't negate the free will question that I have asked but puts it in a different
light. Can we CHOOSE to do that which is good?
Horse
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 - 16:03:16 BST