From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Nov 30 2004 - 18:04:36 GMT
Hi Sam, Platt, Chin, et al
Back on 11/9, Sam Norton responded to Platt's RMP quotation suggesting that
it is wrong to use religious absolutes as a standard for morality. If we
are all in agreement about this, it means that MOQ holds to the view that
morality is relative. Here is Sam's original post, including the Prisig
quotation:
> Hi Platt, Chin,
>
> Chin - thanks for an intriguing post, which quoted one of my favourite
lines from ZMM: "My personal
> feeling is that this is how any further improvement of the world will be
done: by individuals making
> Quality decisions and that's all."
>
> I think this is the answer to Platt's question: "What source of morality
should [the nation] rely on
> until the MOQ is as widely known and believed as religious moral
teaching?" and it lies behind what
> Platt quotes from RMP ""To put philosophy in the service of any social
organization or any dogma is
> immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one."
>
> In other words, the individual choosing Quality *cannot* be driven by any
coherent body of
> teaching - including the MoQ - the decision has to be autonomous, else
there is no DQ, therefore no
> 'further improvement'.
>
> (Thing is, if the individual has this central a place in the application
of the MoQ, shouldn't the
> MoQ have some means of describing or fostering such behaviour? Or is it
beyond it (by definition)?)
>
> Sam
My own answer to Sam's parenthetical question is: Yes, it is not only beyond
but contrary to the MOQ to foster moral behavior. I say that because I
believe that man is autonomous in his ability to choose, and I think Pirsig
agrees. Any standard imposed on that Freedom is necessarily conditional
(i.e., relative), hence, opposed to the philosophy of individual autonomy.
(I leave the matter as to whether this "fosters" or "generates" DQ to the
MOQ arbitrators.). But most of those comprising what has been termed the
"moral right" -- and that would include Platt and myself -- have at times
expressed the view that society is doomed by the concept of moral
relativism. After considerable introspection on this issue, I've come to
the conclusion that imposing "absolutes" on moral behavior is contrary to
the inherent autonomy of man, and that, except for the sanctity of
individual sensibility (consciousness), the only philosophically acceptable
morality is relativistic.
I've even found support for moral relativity in the religious community.
You may find this thoughtful sermon by a Unitarian minister quite revealing
with respect to previous MOQ postings. I did. I've featured it on my
"Values in the Balance" page this week. Check it out at
www.essentialism.net/balance.htm . I'll be interested in your comments.
Essentially yours,
Ham
>
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 Nov 30 2004 - 18:36:16 GMT