MD The MOQ and Moral Intuition

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Aug 10 2004 - 02:22:34 BST

  • Next message: Scott Roberts: "MD Material as perceived"

    Hi all,

    Just as all of us are born with the ability to recognize Quality, I
    think we have an innate tendency to behave Morally, though both of
    these abilities may, through the vicissitudes of life, be finely
    tuned or utterly destroyed, resulting in the wide variety of
    individuals, from saints to monsters, none of us would deny exist.

    I think I'm atrracted to the MOQ because it is in itself an
    expression of this Moral Intuition we all possess. I find nothing in
    my study of the MOQ that is at odds with my own sense of morality.
    My understanding of the MOQ, rightly or wrongly, is that Quality and
    Morality are so closely related as to be indistinguishable. As we
    move up through the evolutionary levels, driven by DQ, we also ascend
    toward capital G Goodness, and no one need tell us what is good and
    what is not good, right? The ascension is, in a way, just us coming
    to recognize, and to release from within ourselves, our own profound
    and innate sense of what is right and what is wrong.

    Anyway, here are some thoughts on this issue of Moral Intuition,
    offered by a world-famous cognitive scientist and philosopher, who
    shall remain nameless:

    "There is no doubt that people have moral intuitions, and
    research -- serious research is in very early stages --
    reveals that they are quite uniform without experience in
    complex situations, and in many ways surprising.  There is
    little reason to doubt David Hume's observation that they
    are grounded in our nature -- as we would restate it,
    adding nothing much substantive, in our genetic endowment. 
    We can learn little bits about these topics by the methods
    of science, but the issues of human life so vastly exceed
    the range of scientific understanding that we are almost
    always proceeding on the basis of moral intuition, which is
    subject to reflection, debate, sharpening, etc., but cannot
    be grounded in the way you seem to suggest. The same is
    true of the epistemological intuitions that guide
    scientific research, in fact.  Why should we seek what by
    our cognitive standards are simple, elegant theories?  In
    brief, we have to live our lives, without immobilizing
    ourselves by posing questions that are very remote from
    answers, or even coherent formulation.  That's not to say
    we shouldn't think about them, but without being
    immobilized by them.

    What I've called truisms I think are moral truisms: for
    example, that we should apply to ourselves the same
    standards we apply to others (in fact, more stringent
    ones).  Suppose I run into someone who doesn't agree: say,
    someone who thinks it's outrageous for someone to cause
    severe harm to us, but just fine for us to cause far more
    severe harm to them?  Then discussion is pretty much at an
    end.  However, I think this situation is very rare.  The
    usual situation is denial that we are causing severe harm
    to them; rather, we are doing our best to help them, but
    sometimes failing because of our naivete, innocence,
    tendency to sacrifice ourselves too much for others, etc. 
    That's the essence of what in honest days used to be called
    "propaganda," and is now called "news," or "information,"
    or "sober commentary by public intellectuals," or
    "scholarship," etc.  I think that is overwhelmingly true. 
    One rarely comes across someone who says "I'm a Nazi and
    proud of it." But if so, that reveals that there is
    something of a common moral ground, and a basis for
    constructive interchange -- which may, and sometimes does,
    sharpen moral intuitions as well.  We all know that very
    well in fact.  It's not that long ago, after all, that it
    was considered not just tolerable but in fact deeply moral
    to have slaves, beat one's wife if she is disobedient, lash
    children, or torture a poor person who robbed a crumb of
    bread."

    Thanks to all. And, of course and as always, I welcome the thoughts
    of any and all of you MOQers, even if you're not world-famous. ;-)

    Best,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh)

    -- 
    InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
    Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
    Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
    "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
    everything."  -- Henri Poincare'
    MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward  - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 : Tue Aug 10 2004 - 02:17:11 BST