From: phyllis bergiel (neilfl@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 03:32:04 BST
Platt and Johnny -
I'm getting very confused about who said what, but it seems your ethical
relativism discussion
might like a new voice - and a turn back to a more Pirsigian channel.
First, the beats were probably not the first. Look back at Frank Lloyd
Wright, Hemmingway, Henry Miller, Louis Bromfield; the Roaring Twenties had
quite a lot to say about nonconformity. Look farther back, in philosophy -
Nietzsche, Bentham, Mill, Socrates himself was fairly nonconformist for his
time - if only he'd taken money for his teaching, many would have thought
him more "normal."
Second, I will encourage everyone to read philosophers (not the
philosophologists) - very readable ones too. Try Louis Pojman, one is "A
Defense of Ethical Objectivism" the other is titled "Who's to Judge?"
Johnny, I think you'd be very interested in one of Pojman's main points
against the ethical relativism you're advocating (if I'm understanding you
correctly): if it's wrong to go against the mores of one's culture, then
the reformer is always, without exception, morally wrong. Therefore,
Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ were morally wrong in their
actions. Platt - not all colleges and universities, even state schools,
have succumbed to the relativist bandwagon.
Third, (I did mention Pirsig) I would contend that the dynamic is the
(metaphorical) realm where absolute morals reside, before they are
assimilated into static social patterns or argued over by intellectual ones.
Phyllis
PS - I love Jonathan Edwards! Ever try reading the spider part of "In the
Hand of an Angry God" out loud to someone?
> Before they (really it was the beats like Ginsburg and Kerouac) made it
cool
> to disparage morality as a repressive drag that heroic people ignore. I
> looked up "Kerouac" on m-w.com to check my spelling, he's described as
> writing in a "non-conformist style" - exactly! That "you should do what
you
> shouldn't do" is what I am opposed to, as it is an obvious contradiction.
> Being a non-conformist just because conformity is seen as bad is what I am
> opposed to. I just want to affirm the connection between what we should
do
> (what most would probably do) and what we should do (what we ought to do).
> To admit the empirical truth about what we should do instead of trying to
> construct an elaborate lie to exempt ourselves from morals we don't like.
> Should means should.)
>
> >Maybe this is an example of the newer and better morality that on one
> >hand you disparage, on the other hand endorse. The idea that whatever
> >most people do in Zimbabwe is moral in Zimbabwe is the new moral
> >relativism and equivalency being taught in schools and colleges today in
> >the name of diversity, tolerance and political correctness. If the people
> >in Mascatchooan throw every third baby girl into a bonfire as a cultural
> >rite, there's nothing wrong with that. Who are we to tell them that it's
> >wrong? We must tolerate the customs of other cultures and celebrate
> >the diversity of life. Those values are much higher than what happens to
> >individual human beings within those cultures.
> >
> >Swallowing such a line of malarkey is the road to hell on earth. If
that's
> >the "new and better" morality that bothers you, I'm with you all the way.
>
> I would not tolerate those customs if anyone tried to introduce them into
my
> own, I would say it is wrong and you should conform to the culture of the
> time and place you live in. Likewise, if I were a Zimbabwean, I would not
> tolerate someone from America practicing their cultural imperialism on my
> culture, or perhaps I would, if I decided I'd rather have a life like
> americans have in the movies.
>
> It's funny you say that I 'on the one hand disparage, on the other hand
> endorse' the new and better, because it seems like you are the one with a
> hand in each camp. You don't offer a way of separating your "new and
> better" from the hippies version, except to say that your "new and better"
> is better than theirs is, is "more dynamic" or "intellectual" or "free" or
> something. They feel theirs is pretty intellectual and free too. I do
> offer a way, which is to let the patterns of culture do the 'newing and
the
> bettering' while firmly and absolutely maintaining that you should do what
> you should do, that morality should be respected. It's not a
contradiction
> as you seem to believe, it is more like a system of internal checks and
> balances. We don't need to explicitly say that everything stinks and
should
> be cleared of debris, dusted off and scrutinized, and then thrown out
unless
> it somehow is able to justify itself, in order for things to improve, we
can
> say that things are wonderful and watch things improve organically, as
they
> always have.
>
> > >I wouldn't condemn anyone to reading original texts written by
> >philosophers except for a few moderns like Pirsig who take pains to
> >make their texts readable. My reference is from Will Durant's "The Story
> >of Philosophy" where in writing about Schopenhauer's ideas he says,
>
> Yeah, I think it is a pretension of mine to think I have to have the
> original authors on my shelf. That particular quote doesn't say much to
> contradict determinsism, but thanks for the permission to read secondary
> sources anyway. (I really recommend Jonathan Edwards again on free will
and
> beauty, Freedom of The Will is quite readable, and there are also lots of
> great interpreters out there. James Carse's book is excellent, and the
Lee
> book especially for it's relation to MoQ's dynamic elements:
>>
> > > If you think something is moral or cultural, then doing it probably
> > > benefits culture and morality.
> >
> >Like Saddam Hussein? I don't think so.
>
> Don't understand
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Thu May 01 2003 - 03:27:17 BST