Horse, Platt, David, Jonathan, all,
Horse, the medium we use to discuss is hardly fit for confusions in terminology.
Sitting right next to you with a beer, we could have cleared it right up and go on.
Now already it seems there have passed too many words. Though it may be boring,
agreeing on terminology is one of the most important things in philosophical exchanges.
David is right saying:
> Um, speaking of terminology... I think your instinct to make a distinction
> between traditional morality and the MOQ's use of the word is right on,
> but I find your use of "Good and Moral" awfully confusing. Pirsig uses
> those words too and I'm not sure if you two have exactly the same thing in
> mind.
Actually, it appears we had completely the opposite in mind regarding
the Good and Moral-distinction. This means however we agree on a
distinction to be made. What probably leads to confusion is the
use of the words good and moral.
Platt wrote:
> Throughout Lila, the words "value," "quality," "moral" and "good" are
> used almost interchangeably, leading me to believe Pirsig treats
> them as virtually synonymous or at least so closely related that they
> shouldn't be imbued with significantly different meanings as you attempt to
> do in the passage above. (Either that or I misunderstand your point.) Static
> patterns of morality value are all patterns of good within the moral framework
> of the MoQ.
Though I agree with Platt that the words Good and Moral are interchangeable, it
doesn't mean there's no distinction between Reality = Quality = Good or Moral on
the one hand and (traditional) social Morality on the other hand. It just means we have
to use other (better) terms.
Back to Horse's question:
> Can we deduce the correct action (what we SHOULD do) from the facts that confront us?
Jonathan responded:
> If you know where you are starting, and where you want to get to, you *may*
> find the path. [...] The correct moral action depends on providing a means to reach
> the moral objective. The objective is seldom contentious (health, happiness,
> love etc.) but we usually argue about the means (capitalism vs. socialism
> etc.). Choosing the means can be a great problem because the picture is
> seldom complete.
Jonathan adds a starting point and objective to the question which's interesting. Most
of our everyday actions are within such a framework: we have to go to NYC (problem),
we have to be there by night (factor time complicates the problem), one of us is affraid
to fly (further situational input) etc. In my opinion finding the correct or optimal way
to solve the problem is part of Morality. It's the Good thing to do.
However, there are lots of actions without real clearcut objectives. I ask myself to which
Moral or Good is the action then evaluated?
Is it like Platt says?:
> We can judge the morality of a person's behavior according to it's position
> and effects within the MoQ moral hierarchy.
I'll end now, though I've much more to say on the topic. I'm a little sick and my
thinking is not very clear.
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