From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jan 03 2005 - 20:46:25 GMT
Hi Ham,
Thanks to you the New Year is off to a rousing start.
> What I call 'evil' is an act that is contradictory to Essence.
Since Essence is indefinable other than to say it is the "source," how can
anyone know what is contradictory to it?
> Because I
> understand the individual as an agent of Essence, I believe it is generally
> wrong to take the life of any living creature. But like all existential
> morality, that principle is also relative. I'll swat a mosquito, kill a
> spider, or trap a mouse in the attic with no particular remorse, because I
> place a higher value on my personal well-being than on the lives of
> insects and rodents which interfere with the quality of my life. Yes, this
> is a (relativistic) value judgment.
I see you have a scale of moral values relative to your personal self-
interest. But then you switch gears and proclaim a universal value--the
sanctity of human life.
> However, I am an anthropocentrist. I
> see the taking of a human life as the greatest evil because I believe every
> human being is (potentially at least) a center (locus or agent) of value
> itself. It's his purpose in life; if we terminate man we destroy his
> essence-value, which ultimately is an act against ourselves.
I'm sure you recognize how close this comes to the Christian belief that
we are made in the image of God and therefore shouldn't mess with God's
creation.
> The fact that my value system "reflects Commandment #6, 'Thou shall not
> kill'', does not mean that I accept the Bible as my moral authority. I
> think most religions subscribe to the sanctity of human life, and offer
> scripture or commandments to support this tenet. Admittedly, having been
> brought up in a nominally Christian household, I was undoubtedly influenced
> early in life by such teachings. Had I been raised in a Greek household in
> the time of Plato or Aristotle, I would have been taught the same values.
> But if we believe in the sanctity of man, we don't need an 'authority' to
> make us behave accordingly.
But, suppose I and others don't subscribe to your belief in your universal
"sanctity of man?" What then?
> That's why I have a problem with so-called
> ethical philosophies designed to tell us how to live and act. By
> standardizing ethics we diminish individual freedom. And freedom, as I see
> it, is essential to the autonomy of man and the development of his
> value-sense.
Again a reflection of Christian belief, you know the old saying, " . . .
endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights . . ." And, pardon
me for pointing it out, but "freedom is essential to the autonomy of man"
(which I happen to agree with) sounds suspiciously like a universal moral
standard.
> > You see, Ham, although this site brings up all sorts of philosophical
> > issues, it all got started with Pirsig's "Inquiry into Morals" and his
> > metaphysics which sets out the initial premise that the universe is
> > structured morally, that is not put together by chance combinations of
> > masses and energies as scientists claim, but by " . . . the principle of
> > "rightness" which gives structure and purpose to the evolution of all
> > life and to the evolving understanding of the universe which life has
> > created." (Lila, 30)
>
> That's a nice thought, Platt, and it has a certain poetic ring to it. But
> if it were really true, why would men have committed atrocities throughout
> human history?
According to Pirsig's moral structure morality at the biological level is
in a constant battle with morality of the inorganic level (life vs.death)
and so on up the ladder of moral levels. So what you call "atrocities"
occur as the result of the conflict between biological level morality
(might makes right) and social level morality (freedom from physical
coercion benefits all). As Pirsig points out, men consist of all moral
levels, and more often than we'd like to admit, their biological,
emotional impulses override social and intellectual values and they behave
like jackals (and/or jackasses).
> Is the human being somehow "out of touch" with this moral
> world structure, or is the world structure itself defective?
No more than you could say that if the human being is out of touch with
Essence that Essence is defective.
> Possibly man,
> unlike lesser creatures, is simply too stupid to know right from wrong.
On the contrary, man is so smart he can justify as right anything he does.
But, it's interesting that your statement is based on the premise that
there is "right and wrong" which looks like a universal moral standard to
me from my seat here in the balcony.
>If
> the universe was created for man, and morality was predesigned into its
> structure, what then do you think man's role is? Or do you accept the
> atheistic nihilism of your comrades here who would deny any purpose beyond
> the Lilatic "evolving understanding of the universe"? I had given you more
> credit than that, so please don't disappoint me again! . After all, it was
> you who questioned my moral integrity --
If I it appeared that I questioned your moral integrity, I regret it and
apologize. What I meant to convey was that without universal moral
standards, who is to say that anything is right or wrong, or if they do
say it, why should we pay any attention?
As for man's role in the universe, I believe he is here to make the
universe better than it was or would be without him, guided by the
principle of rightness. By understanding the universe's moral structure,
man is better able to accomplish that purpose.
I thank you, Ham, for answering the questions I pose. I've tried to
respond in kind and look forward to further dialogue.
Best regards,
Platt
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/04 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 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 21:41:55 GMT