Re: MD Re: Is Morality relative?

From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Sun Jan 02 2005 - 11:35:57 GMT

  • Next message: MarshaV: "RE: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?"

    Erin, I'm not sure what order the exchange you quote happened, but it illustrates the circularity of looking for absolutes ...

    You call Horse's "all possible worlds" answer "pointless and without meaning".
    (In fact Horse was making a condition, not an answer ... starting with "if".)
    Horse, as you point out, goes on to confirm that "context" is necessary for understanding.

    Seems most of us agree knowledge needs context (ie is "relative" to that context) to be at all meaningful (ie useful) in any world we may actually experience.
    Absolutes are for the world of thought experiments of pure logic and controlled boundary conditions, but not reality.

    I too found MSH statement of believing in absolute truth, but not absolute morality a little odd, but I suspect it makes more sense like this.

    I believe all bases for making right or wrong decisions in the real world are context dependent, but that does not preclude the fact that some abolute truth (set of knowledge) might exist in the world beyond any influence on our experience. Whether or not I believe mankind will ever agree on enough context and remove all outstanding and uncertainty and doubt, to believe there is no more knowledge beyond its experience, does not change my preparedness to believe it might exist. What it does say though, is that in the real world of possible experiences, truth (and morality) remains context dependent (relative).

    Ian
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Erin
      To:
      Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:39 AM
      Subject: Re: MD Re: Is Morality relative?

        ARLO:
        Perhaps the teaching here is that to the question "Are there absolutes?", the
        only possible answer we can give is "mu"... which Pirsig makes clear is a
        viable and reasoned answer.

        ERIN: Except it doesn't really explain to somebody why you choose to not say yes or no. I prefer Horse's response of " 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."
         

        msh says:
        I think I should point out that, though I believe there is absolute
        truth, I do not believe that there is some moral absolute that
        applies at all times in all situations. Because some statements are
        absolutely true doesn't mean that every question has an absolute
        answer.

        Erin: I'm not really getting why claiming knowledge of absolute truth is justified.

        msh: OF COURSE context is
        necessary to make moral judgements. Except for religious whackos who
        imagine they have a hard-wire connection to the mind of God, who
        would claim otherwise?

        Erin: well, actually when you claim to know absolutes, it does appear to be claiming to be hardwired into a super consciousness or something along that lines... A twist on an old joke: What is the difference between an Absolutist and God. God doesn't think he's an Absolutist.

        I thought this is funny.

        Platt: Pray, what am I missing?

        Horse: Context.

    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 -

    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 : Sun Jan 02 2005 - 11:42:06 GMT