Horse,
It's a good thing speaking to you again.
Walter:
>> 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.
Horse:
>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'.
I'm with you until you write 'What we need to do now is separate 'Good' from 'Moral'.
You bring up a distinction between Good and Moral which I understand as a
distinction between 'Universal Morality' (the Good) and Human morality/ethics (the Moral).
If I understand this correct, I would say: What we need to do now is to CONNECT 'Good' and 'Moral'.
>From the above 'definition' the Moral of already 'connected' to the Good. It is the
static cultural consensus on what is Good. Often in history, this 'moral'
has been of very low Quality.
The problem however is that it is seen as 'the whole truth and nothing but the
truth ...', whereas within the MoQ there's no such thing. Humans have a
hard time shading decisions. Things are either black or white, right or wrong.
Of course this is understandable because it's the way you live. You don't go
around thinking 'that what I see coming at me looks like a car, but I can easily
be mistaken). The problem with this Moral-truth is that people take it as the
final goal and impose it top-down on how others should act.
I'm asking myself how this bottom-up Morality relates to the value of rules and
laws in society, because it seems to contradict it. I want to argue that it doesn't,
though it's not easy.
Taking morality bottom-up it is tuned in to the Good. It's a proces that takes place
in the individual, whereas laws and rules are social patterns. I'm willing to say that
it's a pure dynamic-process, but doubt this because it's probably influenced or
affected (at least partly) by the culture or mythos. I hope you can follow me so far.
If you can, what do you think, can an individual really tune in to the Good, without
being affected by the static (cultural bagage/mythos)?
Walter wrote:
> Ps Horse, you write: > Is it possible to behave morally?
> I would make that: > Is it possible to behave IMmorally?
> Which (seeing the above) I think gives more credit to morality
> under the MoQ
> Agreed?
Horse writes:
> 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?
Walter says:
I'm confused reading this. To be absolutely sure we're in understanding, when you say
"is an action moral" you mean when evaluated to static concepts
of morality (laws, cultural understandings, etc.) and when you say
"is an action good" you mean when evaluated to the overal (universal) Good.
If you mean it like this I would say: we can choose and whatever we choose is
inherently Good. Killing your grandma with an ax is Good or has quality (though
very little). I have more thoughts, but first want the confusion to be cleared up.
Hope to hear from you.
Walter
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