Lila Squad Jan 98: LS (No subject)

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BD2262.3A13FDD0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Lila Squad.
I just received this question from a young student who has read=20
Pirsig's books (and found my essay). A baffling query admittedly,=20
does anyone have an idea or draft for an answer?=20
Bo

> The question I have, simply put, is, "Is eugenics moral?" Now it is=20
> easily arguable that eugenics for racial
> reasons is not, because useful ideas are lost. But what of the
> mentally handicapped and retarded? Those who most likely will not
> contribute to the intellectual quality in the least. It is
> impossible for me to believe that these people must be lost. That
> these people don't have a quality of their own. I hope you can help
> me, because as of now I can't find an answer in Pirsig's works.
=20
Dear Bodvar and LS,=20
=20
     With respect to your students question about Eugenics, I think I =
know
how I would respond, or how Pirsig would respond, for that matter. In =
this case,
I would have to answer this question with a question: do YOU think =
Eugenics is Moral?
=20
     My understanding of Morality, as Pirsig describes it, is a quality =
all of have,
which serves as a function of our own evolution. For example, scientists =
to this
day still puzzle over the process which led inorganic chemicals to form =
biological
life. To Pirsig, this is simple - this type of chemical bonding took =
place because
it was morally 'better' to to so.
      On a larger scale, we can observe how individual people bond into =
larger
patterns to form families, communities, and societies. Again, this is a =
continuation=20
of this process of assembly, which Pirsig calls Morality.=20
       Morality is not as much as a puzzle as some of might think. We =
puzzle over
it because we are accustomed to the Pre-Pirsig concept of Morality, =
which is a=20
much more cerebral endeavor. Pirsig has attempted to demonstrate the =
existence
of Morality at all stages of Creation, beginning with the Inorganic.
        Morality is only difficult to understand, in my opinion, to =
those who are preoccupied
with the more Cerebral, or "higher" moral endeavors, namely, the search =
for an absolute=20
definition of morality. I think this is a valuable pursuit, but I think =
it can also be misguided. I like to refer to the expression 'Moral =
fibre' because it suggestes than Morality is something that is native to =
our own biology. This is true and observable, when you look at what has =
taken place in the evolution of Mammals as a Genus. In the animal =
kingdom, mammals seem to have prevaded because they exercize such a high =
degree of Morality. But they did not follow a 'moral code' to get this =
far. Mammals are unique in that their survival and growth relies on very =
close and consistent contact with their moral 'unit', which may be a cat =
and their kittens, a pack of wolves, or a herd of buffalo. But the =
results of this evolutional step are clear, and extraordinary.=20
=20
        I can't answer this question about Eugenics. Your student may =
find it easy to discuss the moral implications of eugenics, but who =
wants to discuss the application of it? In practical terms, how do you =
go about practicing Eugenics on a society? What are the moral benefits =
of ending the life of a son or daughter because we don't know if they =
have anything to contribute to intellectual quality?
        People do not arrive at the decision to have a child for the =
benefit of intellectual quality. It is a biological need, and it is part =
of being a mammal. Once a child is born, they have no intellectual =
quality at all. So why have children? Why start families? Why have pets, =
for that matter, when we consider what they contribute to our =
intellectual evolution. These are all questions that cannot be answered =
in terms of intellectual quality, and therefore I think should be left =
out of the intellectual debate.=20
=20
        When we question Morality, we need to consider the whole scope =
of Morality, not just the intellectual end of things. If you become =
preoccupied solely with the intellectual qualities of evolution, you =
diregard the essential building blocks that brought us this far, and =
that includes human warmth and kinship. We would never be this smart if =
are parents weren't that horny.
=20
- Samuel Palmer
=20

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BD2262.3A13FDD0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear Lila Squad.
I just received this question = from a young=20 student who has read
Pirsig's books (and found my essay). A baffling = query=20 admittedly,
does anyone have an idea or draft for an answer?=20
Bo

> The question I have, simply put, is, "Is = eugenics=20 moral?" Now it is
> easily arguable that eugenics for=20 racial
> reasons is not, because useful ideas are lost. But = what of=20 the
> mentally handicapped and retarded? Those who most = likely will=20 not
> contribute to the intellectual quality in the least. = It=20 is
> impossible for me to believe that these people must be = lost. =20 That
> these people don't have a quality of their own. I = hope you=20 can help
> me, because as of now I can't find an answer in = Pirsig's=20 works.

Dear Bodvar and LS,

With respect to your = students=20 question about Eugenics, I think I know

how I would respond, or how Pirsig would respond, = for that=20 matter. In this case,

I would have to answer this question with a = question: do YOU=20 think Eugenics is Moral?

My understanding of = Morality, as=20 Pirsig describes it, is a quality all of have,

which serves as a function of our own evolution. For = example,=20 scientists to this

day still puzzle over the process which led = inorganic=20 chemicals to form biological

life. To Pirsig, this is simple - this type of = chemical=20 bonding took place because

it was morally 'better' to to so.

= On a larger=20 scale, we can observe how individual people bond into = larger

patterns to form families, = communities,=20 and societies. Again, this is a continuation

of this process=20 of assembly, which Pirsig calls Morality.

=20 Morality is not as much as a puzzle as some of might think. We puzzle=20 over

it because we are accustomed = to the=20 Pre-Pirsig concept of Morality, which is a

much more=20 cerebral endeavor. Pirsig has attempted to demonstrate the=20 existence

of Morality at all stages of Creation, beginning = with the=20 Inorganic.

=20 Morality is only difficult to understand, in my opinion, to those who = are=20 preoccupied

with the more Cerebral, or=20 "higher" moral endeavors, namely, the search for an=20 absolute

definition of morality. I = think this is a=20 valuable pursuit, but I think it can also be misguided. I like to refer = to the=20 expression 'Moral fibre' because it suggestes than Morality is something = that is=20 native to our own biology. This is true and observable, when you look at = what=20 has taken place in the evolution of Mammals as a Genus. In the animal = kingdom,=20 mammals seem to have prevaded because they exercize such a high degree = of=20 Morality. But they did not follow a 'moral code' to get this far. = Mammals are=20 unique in that their survival and growth relies on very close and = consistent=20 contact with their moral 'unit', which may be a cat and their kittens, a = pack of=20 wolves, or a herd of buffalo. But the results of this evolutional step = are=20 clear, and extraordinary.

=20 I can't answer this question about Eugenics. Your student may find it = easy to=20 discuss the moral implications of eugenics, but who wants to discuss the = application of it? In practical terms, how do you go about practicing = Eugenics=20 on a society? What are the moral benefits of ending the life of a son or = daughter because we don't know if they have anything to contribute to=20 intellectual quality?

=20 People do not arrive at the decision to have a child for the benefit of=20 intellectual quality. It is a biological need, and it is part of being a = mammal.=20 Once a child is born, they have no intellectual quality at all. So why = have=20 children? Why start families? Why have pets, for that matter, when we = consider=20 what they contribute to our intellectual evolution. These are all = questions that=20 cannot be answered in terms of intellectual quality, and therefore I = think=20 should be left out of the intellectual debate.

=20 When we question Morality, we need to consider the whole scope of = Morality, not=20 just the intellectual end of things. If you become preoccupied solely = with the=20 intellectual qualities of evolution, you diregard the essential building = blocks=20 that brought us this far, and that includes human warmth and kinship. We = would=20 never be this smart if are parents weren't that = horny.

- Samuel Palmer

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST