Hi all,
Dave
> I think its worth pointing out that "does wrong" is translated from a
> word in the original Greek that actually meant "misses the mark". So
> even though the alternative versions avoid the word "righteous", it
> propably still carries a more moralistic tone than Socrates intended.
> He's saying that no one does wrong willingly. When one thinks of the
> claim, "No one misses the mark intentionally" it almost becomes a
> truism. Or how about "No one makes a mistake on purpose."? It then
seems
> like mere common-sense.
That's a beauty Dave, and fully consistent with the way I understand
Pirsig. I'm all for restating things to make them obvious.
[snip]
> I think Pirsig and Socrates are both saying that even guys like Hitler
> and Stalin didn't see themselves as evil. They didn't intentionally
> choose to be wrong or immoral. They thought they were doing good. ...
As I wrote recently in the other forum, the ends justify the means. Both
Hitler and Stalin probably believed that the temporary horrors they
inflicted were small payment for the glory to come. The same reasoning
can be used to justify the NATO bombing of Serbia. Where we may disagree
is whether the means chosen do indeed lead to a worthy end. Only a
prophet can know for sure.
Let's take Hitler to build a hypothetical example:-
Was it moral to (try to) assassinate him in 1945 (Rommel et al.)?
How about 1940 or 1939? (The Blitzkreig on Poland)?
What about 1938 (Sudetenland)?
1933?
1925?
1910? Could someone murdering a youthful Adolf Hitler claim that he was
doing a moral act to prevent a great evil that would happen decades
later?
Thus, to me, the MoQ puts things in perspective but doesn't actually
solve the problem. People may do what they perceive to be good, but that
good is contextual. That's why "good" in a narrow context often turns
out to be rather bad in a wider context.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:45 GMT