From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 12 2004 - 13:44:05 GMT
Hi Erin:
> PLATT: Absolute moral laws are meant to apply universally to all ethical
> decisions made by men. You can argue, as some have, that moral laws are
> contextual in that they apply ONLY to men. Pirsig, however, proposes that
> there are universal moral laws that not only apply to everything , but are
> the foundation of everything. His basic universal moral absolute is "Some
> things are better than others" including things that were around long
> before man appeared on the scene.
>
> ERIN: So absolute is only refering to who/what the law applies to, it is
> not also implying that it has always been and always will be a law?
Yes.
> On a more serious note when looking at the absolutes people have given me
> I noticed that the only one that really helps in making moral
> choices/decisions is that "some things are better than others." But I
> notice that this is very vague and leaves open the door for context. The
> others, math problems, paying taxes, names----- they may be absolutes but
> to me they don't give very much guidance in making a moral decision/
> choice. I understand that to be open to DQ you can't list out moral
> absolutes for moral choices and decisions, so what I wasn't expecting much
> just seeing if you would call my bluff. The fact that you were not able
> (except for some things are better than others) makes me think to stick to
> the contextualist label only for what guides you in moral choices/labels.
Fine. If you wish to stick to the "contextualist label" that's your moral
choice. But, I take an absolutist moral position against rape, kidnapping,
lynching, slavery, theft, assault and murder as commonly defined.
> Also I had been doing a little rereading last night of Lila and I came
> across this -- Pg. 161 " Why does any life survive? It's illogical.
> It's self-contradictory that life should survive. I know you expressed
> contempt for self-contradictory statements so can you explain that flaky
> statement.
Pirsig explains in the sentences that immediately follow:
"If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of
nature then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to
survive? Either life is with physical nature or it's against it. If it's
with nature there's nothing to survive. If it's against physical nature
then there must be something apart from the physical and chemical forces
of nature that is motivating it to be against physical nature."
In four sentences, Pirsig cuts the legs out from under scientific
materialists and humanists who view people as protoplasmic ciphers to be
manipulated.
> PLATT: Finally, those who say "There are no absolutes" assert an absolute.
> In the logic of language, there's no escape. Even those who claim "All is
> shades of grey within context" contradict their claim by invoking the
> absolute "All."
>
> ERIN: just like you but the "possibily but probably not" on another theory
> coming along so can somebody can say, "possibly there are no absolutes"
> without refuting there are absolutes
"Possibly there are no absolutes" is asserted as as absolute truth.
There's no escape.
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 : Sun Dec 12 2004 - 13:43:02 GMT