From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 14:07:02 GMT
Hi Ham,
> Like Ian, I guess I tend to be more interested in the "why" than the "hows"
> of existence.
Don't you mean, "Unlike Ian"? He thinks "why" is a "damn question."
> We are all selfish by nature; it is not a virtue but a description of man's
> position in a relational world.
Agree.
> Rand's philosophy was that we should give
> primary service to self-achievement. She was opposed to the morality of
> altruism which, on analysis, has no more ethical substance than Marxist
> communism.
Agree.
> The actions of many have been attributed to "an altruistic
> motive"; but concepts such as unselfish devotion, living for others,
> sharing the wealth, etc., just don't lend themselves to a workable morality
> system.
Agree.
> But self-sufficiency, like "everything is Quality", is a
> pragmatic axiom without an underlying metaphysical rationale. I see both
> Ayn Rand and RMP as both philosophically deficient in this regard.
"Everything is Quality" is axiomatic. You can't deny it without admitting
it, for your denial will assert the quality of truth.
> In the sense that morality is commonly understood as virtuous conduct, it
> is self-evident to me that this means promoting the "good of humanity".
As I've pointed out before, all the horrors inflicted by tyrants were sold
on the basis of the "good of humanity." That altruistic platitude begs the
question, "What is good?"
> Again, this is a definition rather than an ultimatum. Are you suggesting
> another definition?
I define virtuous conduct as enlightened self-interest.
> > a moral person has "a sense of relationship with all life and one
> > another."
> >
> > -- we are "united as a species by heritage and a common future."
> >
> > -- morality must be based on "respect, care and love."
> >
> > -- "our sense of morality (is) an innate and inherited human trait."
>
> All descriptive statements which, again, allude to virtuous conduct. These
> are not "absolutes", Platt.
In the minister's mind, they are absolutes. I don't see that he qualifies
the statements in any way. He puts them out there as "givens" that no one
can possibly question.
> > In other words, the minister admits to a set of absolute moral
> > assumptions that belie his relativist message and contradicts his
> > assertion that "the real danger to humanity is moral absolutism." (Note
> > that a "danger to humanity" is based on a moral absolute: it's wrong to
> > threaten humanity.)
>
> OK. I'll buy that one -- but only because it supports the absolute
> automony of man. (I'm currently trying to develop that idea as a the
> concept of "immutability". The split between differentiation and unity may
> itself be an absolute. What thinkest thou?)
Agree. The concepts of the one, the many and the none are the three
indispensable walls erected by intellect without which it cannot function.
> I think Edington has
> provided vivid examples of terrible acts against humanity by individuals
> who were absolutely convinced they were right.
Edington (and you I guess) assume that certain acts are "terrible" when
the philosophical question remains, "On what basis should we judge an act
to be "terrible."
Quoting Pirsig:
"We must understand that when a society undermines intellectual freedom
for its own purposes it is absolutely morally bad, but when it represses
biological freedom for its own purposes it is absolutely morally good.
These moral bads and goods are not just "customs." They are as real as
rocks and trees." (Lila, 24)
> Pirsig is putting down absolutism here, Hence, I don't see where Edington
> is in disagreement.
Rather than putting down absolutism, he invokes it in describing his moral
framework.
> > Seems to me that "What is the proper source of morality for a nation?"
> > is a still open question given that the MOQ has a long way to go before
> > it's widely known and accepted. The recent U.S. election showed there's
> > still a huge rift in how that questioned should be answered.
>
> Yes. That's why this discussion is currently relevant.
Yes. And why it's important. After all, what got this whole site started
was Pirsig's "Inquiry into Morals."
> Don't forget that autonomous freedom carries with it major reponsibilities.
> If we're free to make decisions, we can't be dependent on a 'deus ex
> machine' to bail us out when we're wrong. Nor does it further Goodness
> (Quality?) to simply kneel and pray for peace when we are under attack. Is
> man "enlightened" enough to accept his reality as relational and wean
> himself from his historic dependence on authority -- human or supernatural?
> I don't know; but stay tuned.
Taking responsibility and suffering the consequences of one's bad choices
provides an excellent moral formula for "the good of humanity" because, as
you rightly point out, it insures freedom--the highest good in the MOQ.
Thanks for jumping back into the conversation, Ham. You challenge all of
us to reach down to examine our basic assumptions which propel our notions
of good and evil.
Best,
Platt
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 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 14:06:09 GMT