From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 00:34:55 GMT
Hi Erin
On 9 Dec 2004 at 19:59, Erin wrote:
> HORSE: Could I ask you to be a bit more specific about what you mean by
> the 'contextualist argument'.
> An earlyish post of mine gives one definition of contextualism http://alt.
> venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9912/0147.html ) but this
> may not be what you mean.
>
> ERIN: I really can't be more specific because I don't know much about it.
> The idea of context being important is not new to me but I was not aware
> of contextualism until the little I heard of it right now. Do you know is there a
> good book/philosopher that you recommend in learning more about it?
Not off hand but if you do a Google or other search on 'contextualism' you can find a
number of references - try http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/contextu.htm and see it it takes your
fancy. I'm not overly endeared to getting bogged down in -ism's as it tends to make
others label you as an -ist which is generally counterproductive and leads to pejorative
type comments. The idea and general application of context is quite simple and, in
keeping with Pirsig and his approach to philosophy, that's the way I prefer it.
>
> But reading your exchange with Platt, the question/response that I find
> most interesting is to the question of
>
> PLATT: 93Do you think there are any universal moral truths,
> i.e., truths that are not contextual?
>
> ERIN: Are you saying the question is not about whether universals exist
> or not but the question really is whether they exist outside of context?
> I am not really clear about how absolutism and contextualism goes
> together still---- that is if you believe one can you believe the other
> ..do absolutists argue that there are universals outside context and if
> so not sure how you can you be an absolutist and a contextualist?
I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Platt in the above but my take on absolutes in
general is that there may be some absolutes that exist, which are either defined as such
or are trivial, but otherwise, in order to state that something is absolute one needs
absolute knowledge. If something is absolute then it is so in all possible worlds and at
all times. Given that humans do not have this knowledge making such statements is
pontless and without meaning. I suppose Platt will say that this is an absolute statement
but, given the above, this would be incorrect. I'm not denying the existence of truth, far
from it, as the MoQ subscribes to the idea of many truths - which is another way of
saying 'context'.
>
> Another thing that I am not sure about is when they say something that is
> absolute---are there certain aspects absolute or what? That is in Platt's 101 book it was
> defined-- In ethics, the position that there are universal ethical standards that apply to all men so
> what is absolute is to who it applies to but that is not what I find objectionable about
> absolutes it is more the time aspect. To really accept the MOQ as provisional, I don't
> see how you accept it as absolute. So maybe there can be some explanation about
> what absolute means or refers to.
As I said above, if something is absolute then it is so in all possible worlds and at all times.
> To me it seems there may be absolutes when looking at the past but not the
> future.
An often used example of an absolute statement from Lila is:
"...“It’s more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than to allow the germ to.kill his patient.”
The germ wants to live.The patient wants to live.But the patient has moral precedence
because he ’s at a higher level of evolution.
Taken by itself that seems obvious enough.But what ’s not so obvious is that, given a
value-centered Metaphysics of Quality, it is absolutely,scientifically moral for a doctor to
prefer the patient.This is not just an arbitrary social convention that should apply to
some doctors but not to all doctors,or to some cultures but not all cultures.It ’s true for all
people at all time,now and forever,a moral pattern of reality as real as H2O.We’re at last
dealing with morals on the basis of reason. We can now deduce codes based on
evolution that analyze moral arguments with greater precision than before."
(Chapter 13 - Lila - Robert Pirsig)
Which on the face of it appears to be Pirsig making a statement of absolute fact.
However, immediately preceeding this is the proviso:
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things being equal, that
choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level of evolution, is more moral. An
example of this is the statement that..."
which, to me at least, says that the statement is contextual not absolute. To further
contextualise the above, if the patient does not wish to be kept alive then the doctor
would be acting immorally if he ignored the preferences of the patient. So:
"It’s more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than to allow the germ to.kill his patient."
is the absolute statement and
"The germ wants to live.The patient wants to live.But the patient has moral precedence
because he ’s at a higher level of evolution."
is the context.
Does that make sense?
Horse
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 : Wed Dec 15 2004 - 01:10:09 GMT